Few people in this world will spend a full year reading a single book. It happened to me, who happens to run a blog primarily devoted to literature. It will never happen again.
To be sure, there were extenuating circumstances. But I recall that bright day in June of 2010 when I chanced upon this volume in a basket of books in my parent’s bedroom. It stood out to me like a beacon. It was a long book, but I had just finished Ada, which ran about 600 pages and made for extremely difficult reading. Soon I would be starting law school, and I would not be able to read anything besides my casebooks (so I thought). I thought I could finish it before I left for school, roughly two months away. I read the back, and the first line from the introduction: “He used to say that he wanted no biography written while he was alive, and preferably for a hundred years after he was dead.” (vii) It was immediately apparent that it must be my final book before law school. I had read many books which I thought might teach me how to write a stunning first novel (Less Than Zero, The Sun Also Rises, This Side of Paradise, The Catcher in the Rye) and I had read books by John Gardner or Stephen King or Anne Lamott or James Wood or Francine Prose on how to write good books and I had read a book of letters between Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald but I had never read a biography on a writer I admired that might indicate a manner in which to live to best accomplish the task that I had set as my life’s purpose and mission: to write books that would outlast my own life, that would be a record of the life I had lived, that would elucidate my stance on the bits of human existence that were most worth remembering.
I took the book and went outside into my backyard. No one else was home, or would be for days, so I stripped to my underwear and sunbathed and read the first 50 pages. No one saw me, or if they did they said nothing, and I did not care. Here for a brief instant life was good. I had the day off work. I could fill my body with intoxicating chemicals and no one would know. I had settled down to learn from the example of a master.
The months rolled by and Friday, August 13th came, and I moved into my new apartment in Brooklyn. I had made it 250 pages through the book. I was obliged to put it down and read The Buffalo Creek Disaster. I did not read any more for a long time. Over Christmas Break, I began reading Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. That was a very good book, and I was flying through it, and was preparing to write a review for Flying Houses when it was unfortunately stolen along with my messenger bag and iPod and digital camera and D & G glasses from a bar in Chelsea, on or around January 8, 2011.
I returned to this volume at points nearing the end of Spring Semester. My life between August 2010 and May 2011 was extremely painful and has been written about on this blog before, and will likely be written about again. I was finally able to return to this book in earnest near the end of May, before borrowing what will be the next review on this blog, Blindness. Still, I rarely read in Brooklyn, consumed by an internship and feelings of anxiety and hopelessness, time always slipping away without a thing to show for it. I have finally finished today, July 6, 2011, on Nantucket island, and will now state that this book is difficult reading.
One would not expect a biography to be a difficult read, but this is a very minutely detailed book. There are not many reviews of this book on Amazon but the few there admit it to be great. And true, one cannot complain that Baker leaves any stone unturned. This is a remarkably comprehensive account of Hemingway’s life. However, for me, it was too comprehensive, and those looking to tackle it should be forewarned of several distinguishing features.
First, there is almost no dialogue. Now, true, any biography attempting to portray a life realistically should not include much dialogue. A person’s words, spoken aloud in daily life, often go unrecorded and it is dangerous to try to imitate the way the subject may have spoken. Of the 564 pages in this book perhaps three or four pages (or less) consist of dialogue in quotations.
At first this may seem a petty complaint, but I do not think I have ever read a book with such little dialogue. And it leads to me reflect upon a comment a writing teacher of mine once said: “Dialogue is a reward for the reader.” Dialogue is like candy. Dialogue may be difficult to write, but is almost always easy to read. Pages consisting of dialogue in quotations will be flipped through noticeably faster than those of thick, dense, descriptive paragraphs. Law students reading casebooks may experience a similar feeling when reading cases that quote extensively from the record. These are often a relief. A little break. A reward. Here is the main dialogue I remember from the book:
“Buck, I just called to tell you I got that thing.”
“That thing? What thing?”
“That Swedish thing. You know.”
“You mean the Nobel Prize?”
“Yeah,” said Ernest. “You’re the first one I called.”
“God-damned wonderful,” Lanham said. “Congratulations.”
“I should have had the damn thing long ago,” said Ernest. “I’m thinking of telling them to shove it.”
“Don’t be a jackass. You can’t do that.”
“Well, maybe not,” said Ernest. “There’s thirty-five thousand dollars. You and I can have a hell of a lot of fun with thirty-five thousand dollars. The big thing I called about, Buck, is I want you to come down here and handle me. Everybody’s going to be banging on the door of the Finca. Buck, how about it?” (527)
“Buck” is Buck Lanham, a general in the U.S. Army stationed in France, Belgium, and Germany during World War II. He figures prominently in this book. The biography is actually dedicated to Buck Lanham and Dorothy Baker (the author’s wife). Buck Lanham becomes a close friend to Ernest, and later to Carlos Baker. Lanham must have provided the majority of first-person accounting on Ernest over the last seventeen years of his life or so. They met when Ernest was a war correspondent in Europe between 1943 and 1944.
My earlier point about dialogue should not be misconstrued. My comment referred to “blocked” dialogue. And that excerpt above may be the only such example in the book. But there is plenty of dialogue contained within the dense, descriptive paragraphs of the book. However, they are mostly phrases, or single sentences. Like one line of Ernest’s that he liked to say after his experiences in World War II: “How do you like it now, gentlemen?” This he said to his mother after threatening to cut her off when she was a poor old woman living in River Forest, IL in the late 1940’s. He had a very bad relationship with his mother because he believed she drove his father to suicide.
If the lack of “blocked” dialogue is a complaint, then my other complaint involves the subject matter of this book. True, there is plenty about Ernest’s writing, and his love and disdain for other writers, but the book is decidedly focused on the events in his life that inspired his writing. Consequently, there is an incredible amount of material of his time serving as a correspondent for the Spanish Civil War and World War II. The sections of the book about his time served as an ambulance driver during World War I are, for some reason, less tedious, perhaps if (or because) one has read A Farewell to Arms. There is almost nothing I remember about the Spanish Civil War from this book. But the stories from World War II are frankly ridiculous. Notably, there is one part where he sees a general crouched down behind a rock with his men, and he tells Buck Lanham, who is worried he will have to replace him, that the man is going to die because he has a stink of death about him. A day or two later the general does die, and Lanham asks how he could possibly know that was going to happen. Ernest replies that it is something one picks up while serving in a war.
There are other episodes where he narrowly escapes death about a dozen or so times, and it is incredible to observe such behavior where there does not seem to be any real hope of gain except for the thrill of being in a dangerous situation. Later he is questioned by the Inspector General when they suspect him of acting outside the scope of his duties as a war correspondent, in violation of the Geneva Convention. He lies, he commits perjury, and he is ashamed, because he actually does command troops. It is sort of hilarious that yes, he does have war experience, but he is basically just this writer that loves danger, and he is a big man with a big beard, and people automatically assume he is some kind of general, and he speaks with authority, and they listen to him.
There is much about his life near Havana, Cuba, and his fishing boat, the Pilar. In another hilarious episode, he learns about German submarines surfacing and demanding provisions from fishing boats in the area. He decides to assemble a ragtag group of eight individuals and calls the scheme Friendless, after the name of one of his cats. They get a bunch of grenades and plan to throw them into a German submarine when the enemy party might emerge on deck in an attempt to raid their fishing boat. They patrol the area, but they never get the opportunity to actually attack the Nazis.
There is much about hunting, and fishing. And there is much about the friendships he makes along the way, but few of the names will be previously familiar to readers of this book. If one wanted to make a movie of Hemingway’s life, this would be the place to start. However, it is clear from this book that he would absolutely hate the prospect of such a film. There are episodes involving all of the films that are adapted from his works, and it is only the film of his short story “The Killers” that he finds comes close to his written product.
The above material, if one is very interested in hunting, or fishing, or first-person accounts of wartime adventures, will be quite enjoyable. However, I must take issue with Baker’s writing style during these sections. True, he does seem to write with authority on the subject matter, but it can often be confusing for the lay reader without such experience—or worse yet, boring. But this is how Hemingway really lived: he wrote, he travelled, he admired the courage of those on the front lines of war and spent as much time with them as he could, he hunted and fished extensively, and he liked to surround himself with friends to drink and carry out such activities.
While he may come off as egotistical at times, what comes across more is his ability to listen to others and his thirst for hearing their real experiences. I have often marveled at Nabokov’s linguistic capabilities, and while Hemingway did not write in his second language, he also spoke French, Spanish, and some Italian. Rather than college at Oberlin or the University of Illinois, he immediately starts as a journalist in Kansas City, and readers in 2011 with too much money spent on education and too few practical skills actually learned will bemoan their existence. His knowledge of the arts and sciences is not diminished by lack of such education. He does not learn by studying (except when it comes to literature), but by doing.
Baker is at his best when discussing the literary aspects of Hemingway’s life. And I do not think it is just because I am so partial to him, but any paragraph that mentions F. Scott Fitzgerald is instantly quotable. It is true that there are too many quotations I could include here, but there are few other subjects I would want my review to contain. Here, after Baker mentions that Hemingway had been reading Thomas Mann (Buddenbrooks) and Turgenev (Fathers and Children) near the end of 1925, is one of the many episodes in which he holds court with visitors from a sickbed:
“From the fastness of his featherbed, Ernest discoursed at length to Fitzgerald on the importance of subject in fiction. War, said he, was the best subject of all. It offered maximum material combined with maximum action. Everything was speeded up and the writer who had participated in a war gained such a mass of experience as he would normally have to wait a lifetime to get. Dos Passos, for one, had been made by the Kaiser’s War, having gone to it twice and grown up in between. This was one reason why his Three Soldiers was such a swell book. Other good subjects, according to Ernest, were love, money, avarice, murder, and impotence. The Sun Also Rises, which he must now work all winter to revise, engaged none of these except the second and the last, but his hopes for the book were high. As soon as he recovered from his respiratory infection, he would take up the task of revision and typing.” (161)
Several of these episodes would be contained in A Moveable Feast, which is the last book that Hemingway works on, besides a lengthy article on bullfights that he observed on his last trip to Spain around 1959 or 1960. A Moveable Feast is treated as a series of “sketches” but if one has not read it, and would like to read about Hemingway, it is the real place to start. Much of their friendship took place after the writing of The Great Gatsby and before the publication of Tender is the Night:
“In spite of his own writing difficulties, Ernest played Dutch uncle to Fitzgerald, repeatedly urging him to get forward with Tender is the Night. The only thing to do with a novel, said he, was to finish it. Scott’s mood of depression was nothing but the Artist’s Reward. Summer was anyhow a discouraging time to work: only in the fall, when the feeling of death came on, did you find ‘the boys’ putting pen to paper. The good parts of a novel might be something a writer was lucky enough to overhear or they might be the wreckage of his whole damned life. The artist should not worry over the loss of his early bloom. People were not peaches. Like guns and saddles, they were all the better for becoming slightly worn. When a bloomless writer got his flashes of the old juice, he knew enough to get results with them. As always with Fitzgerald, Ernest managed to sound like a grizzled veteran of fifty rather than a comparative youngster of thirty whose second novel was not yet published.” (204)
Their friendship, however, is not always nice and friendly. In fact they have something of a falling out:
“As for Scott, he felt that only two events could possibly redeem him: either Zelda must die or Scott must develop a stomach disorder severe enough to make him stop drinking. Why did he refuse to grow up? Why was he drunk whenever Ernest saw him? His ‘damned bloody romanticism’ and his ‘cheap Irish love of defeat’ were becoming tiresome. Ernest, on the other hand, said that he had a damned good time all the time. When he was able to work, he never felt low. He took great pleasure in living for 340 days out of every 365. He was always conscious, he said, of living not one life but two. One was that of a writer who got his reward after his death, and to hell with what he got now. The other was that of a man who got everything now, and to hell with what came to him after death. Fame was anyway a strange phenomenon. A man might become immortal with ten lines of poetry or a hundred pages of prose. Or not, no matter how much he wrote, if he never had what it took. In his lifetime, a writer was judged by the sum total and average of his work. After he died, only the best mattered. He was convinced that human beings were probably ‘intended’ to suffer. But his experience had shown him that a man could get used to anything as long as he refused to worry about bad luck before it happened.” (238-239)
When Tender is the Night is published, Hemingway first rejects it, finding that it is basically a portrait of Fitzgerald’s life on the French Riviera, without any understanding of the psychological complexities of the characters he had picked out from real life. But his opinion would change:
“At first he had understated the book’s virtues and overemphasized its shortcomings. Scott obviously had talent to burn, said Ernest, but he had ‘cheated too damned much in this one.’ His problem was that he had stopped listening long ago, except to answers to his own questions. This was what dried a writer up. The minute he started listening again, he would sprout like dry grass after a sozzling rain. He must also learn to forget his personal tragedy. Everyone was bitched from the start, anyhow, and it was clear enough that Scott had to be hurt like hell before he could write seriously. It was his obligation to use the damned hurt in his writing, not to cheat with it. Neither he nor Ernest was a tragic character: they were only writers who must write. Most good writers, including James Joyce, were rummies. But good writers could always make comebacks. Scott was twice as good right this minute as he had been at the time of The Great Gatsby. ‘Go on and write,’ said Ernest.” (262) Fitzgerald then replies with an enthusiastic letter about how much he looks up to Hemingway and even needs to stop reading his books for fear that he will influence him too much.
Their friendship continues along pleasantly enough until Fitzgerald published “The Crack-Up” in Esquire in 1936. “Ernest was shocked. Scott, he felt, seemed almost to be taking pride in the shamelessness of his defeat. Why in God’s name couldn’t he understand that writers went through that kind of emptiness many times?” (283) Then there comes a decisive moment. Both Fitzgerald and Hemingway made a practice out of carving their characters from real life, but one story goes too far, and is worth a long excerpt:
“The story [“The Snows of Kilimanjaro”] also reached out to involve Fitzgerald. The dying writer was made to remember ‘poor Scott Fitzgerald’ and ‘his romantic awe’ of that ‘special glamorous race’ who had money. When Scott had discovered that they were not so glamorous as he had supposed, the realization ‘wrecked him just as much as any other thing that wrecked him.’ Ernest was determined not to follow Fitzgerald into the wreckage of a crack-up. As he had long ago told him, wreckage was made to be used by writers, even if it was the wreckage of one’s whole damned life. If the rich were indeed the enemy, Ernest would use them as such in his fiction.
“Ill and depressed among the green mountains of North Carolina, Fitzgerald was angered to see his name used in Ernest’s story. He got off a curt note on the stationery of the Grove Park Inn in Asheville.
Dear Ernest: Please lay off me in print. If I choose to write de profundis sometimes it doesn’t mean I want friends praying aloud over my corpse. No doubt you meant it kindly, but it cost me a night’s sleep. And when you incorporate it [the story] in a book would you mind cutting my name? It’s a fine story—one of your best—even though ‘Poor Scott Fitzgerald, etc.’ rather spoiled it for me. Ever your friend, Scott.
[P.S.] Riches have never fascinated me, unless combined with the greatest charm or distinction.
“Ernest presently wrote Perkins that Scott’s reaction was damned curious coming from a man who had spent all winter writing ‘those awful things about himself’ in Esquire. His reply to Scott himself said ominously that for five years now he had not written a line about anyone he knew because he had felt so sorry for them. But all that was past. He was going to stop being a gentleman and go back to being a novelist, using whatever material he damned well chose.” (290)
They correspond a couple other times with less rancor, but this is pretty much the extent of “gossip” contained in this book. Hemingway later reflects that Tender is the Night is probably Fitzgerald’s masterpiece around the time of the publication of For Whom the Bell Tolls and Fitzgerald’s death. Other literary figures, such as Ezra Pound, Sinclair Lewis, William Faulkner, J.D. Salinger, and Tennessee Williams appear in varying degrees, usually treading lightly so as not to upset Hemingway, who may justifiably be deemed a prickly personality—that is, if the slightest hint of a criticism emerged in an article or lecture. The exception is for Italian historian and art critic Bernard Berenson, who was in his 80s when he befriended Hemingway—Berenson never does wrong in his eyes. Famous movie stars such as Gary Cooper and Marlene Dietrich become close friends of his, as does Ingrid Bergman (but not her husband) and his attitude towards Spencer Tracy, who would play Santiago in the film adaptation of The Old Man and the Sea, is ambivalent.
In general the book is long and slow, but it is detailed. And it has always been something of a hobby of mine to stop by the same places where Hemingway has been in the past. While in Paris in 2003, I went to the Closerie des Lilas in Montparnasse and wrote a paper about how it had changed over the last seventy-five years. I have only been to Oak Park, IL proper a few times but have not driven by the house of his youth. He did not have very strong feelings for New York: “The homeward voyage was both stormy and dull. He gazed with surly distaste at the skyline of New York—the damned ‘chickenshit cement canyon town’ which he had left so exuberantly four months earlier.” (482) But he stayed at a friend’s house at 116 E. 64th St. in 1956 and at 1 E. 62nd St. in 1959. Notably for my present circumstances, he stayed at 45 Pearl Street in Nantucket in 1910 and sang at the First Congregational Church in a choir with his mother. I ran by the First Congregational Church yesterday en route to Cliff Rd. and hope to pass by 45 Pearl Street before I leave here the day after tomorrow.
His influence continues unabated fifty years after his death. While on vacation here, one of my sisters brought a biography of J.D. Salinger which came out this year. I found the coincidence remarkable. Here we are, both English majors (to a certain extent), both on vacation, one in law school and one considering going, one with an Ernest Hemingway biography and the other with a J.D. Salinger biography. I pointed out the one paragraph (on page 420, which only passes “the test” previously described here if one considers Salinger’s prose a narcotic) that describes their meeting in Paris in 1944 and asked whether she would show me the corresponding section in her book, which she did not. I wanted to have a debate about which writer would better stand the test of time as an American literary hero. It is tough, but I think Hemingway wins out. Another sister brought The Paris Wife, which my mother then read, which is a fictionalized account of his years in Paris, the title a reference to his first wife (out of four) Hadley, with her as the novel’s protagonist. So many coincidences show that he has permeated a great many fashions underlying the fabric of daily American life, down to the men in their middle-to-old age who have white hair and full beards, who bear an unmistakable resemblance. There are not many others who can be said to inhabit a state of appearance.
This book took me a very long time to read, and perhaps I found it slow and disappointing because it does not read like one of Hemingway’s books, where the prose has a tendency to fly off the page in often beautiful and original ways. Like Salinger after him, his literary style became the status quo, and remains a serious influence to this day. The final section of the book, the last fifty pages or so, went a good deal faster for me. His mind begins to deteriorate, and his weight drops to 175 pounds. The ending is somewhat sad, and also darkly funny when on the last night of his life he acts like everything is totally fine, and he wakes up early, and though his wife Mary has locked away the guns, he knows where the keys are kept. He goes about his death in a very matter-of-fact way. Of course he died too young and he might have produced several more great books yet, but he lived more than twenty years longer than Fitzgerald and surely left his mark on the world. If suicide is universally regarded as an immoral act, he at least may have had the excuse that it ran in his family, and that he could not help it if it were in his genes. He had two stays at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN during the last couple years of his life to tend to his psychiatric condition with shock treatments and other medication, which seemed to have a positive short-term effect, but obviously not long-term.
I have surprisingly never reviewed one of Hemingway’s books on Flying Houses but The Sun Also Rises is a masterpiece. I read The Old Man and the Sea as an 8th grader, required for school, and probably did not appreciate it enough at the time. It deserves a second look. I read A Farewell to Arms in high school as another required book, but I enjoyed it very much. It also deserves a second look. I have read A Moveable Feast two or three times and it is highly entertaining, oftentimes hilarious. I have not read For Whom the Bell Tolls and this will hopefully be reviewed sometime here in the not too distant future. But for now, I have been consumed deeply enough by Hemingway and will move onto a new book with renewed vigor and a goal to never take this long to read a book again.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Special Comment - Scamblogs
This post required a large amount of painful research. One could ignore it, or take it with a grain of salt. One could also take it seriously and induce a nervous breakdown. It depends on whether one sees themselves in their posts.
I am talking about scamblogs, of course. These are blogs that focus on law school. One wishes there were more blogs like Flying Houses that can help you with 10 different case briefs written in a creative way. However, most blogs about law school focus on the detriment it is causing to individuals. These blogs are united in a common cause for law schools to be more transparent in the information they present to prospective students. They focus intensely on the employment rate of the class 9 months after graduation. They suggest that it does not show what percentage of that number (which is almost always between 90-99%) is employed outside the legal profession. They suggest that it is a voluntary survey that does not take into account the students that don't respond. They suggest that there are too many law schools and too many law school students and not enough legal positions to go around. And also that law school is too expensive and not worth going into debt over unless maybe you are going to one of the top 15 schools in the nation. Sometimes debt goes from $100,000 - $200,000. Mine is $60,000, plus whatever interest accrues by then. This is assuming my parents are able to support me for the next two years (and time to study for the Bar, and $3,000 for the Barbri course, and however long it takes me to find a job in NYC, plus rent). What happens when I go broke and I need to start paying off my loans? The only positive thing I have heard about loans is that you can defer their payment because of "hardship" (i.e. lack of employment). No matter what, I do not want to go into any greater debt than $60,000--that scares me enough as it is. And here I may not qualify for my merit scholarship renewal (grades are released in a week...perhaps grades will be released before this post is actually posted) and I could lose all of my funding, or at least a significant amount. If my grades aren't that great, and if I'm not at a top 15 school (or not even a top 50 school), and it's getting expensive for everyone involved, is it really worth it to go on? Will I ever get a job? Who knows. Impossible to know until you are faced with the situation. But it appears the odds are against us.
If I were to write a letter seeking advice from someone writing or posting on one of these sites, it is clear they would tell me to drop out. Who knows if I will get the same response from a person affiliated with my institution--a career counselor, a faculty member--if I reveal the same facts. My guess is that they will say, "Do what you really want to do--if your heart is set on being an attorney, then don't give up because eventually things will work out." I know that if I try to bring it up to my Dad, he will say, "There are so many other jobs you can get with your degree if you finish it out." Or if I tell him I want to quit he says, "What are you going to do then--work at a restaurant for the rest of your life?" And I say, "I don't know, I'll figure something out."
It appears to me this post might be most powerful if written entirely as a hypothetical dialogue--one of the few skills I have developed as a creative writer, the ability to present two sides to an issue--but no, this is a statement about scamblogs, and as such, it must go into an analysis of several websites, and attempt to answer the question, "How bad is it out there, really?"
We begin with the most popular of all sites, previously mentioned here in a couple posts, but most prominently back in my first post since Flying Houses went on "academic hiatus"--here is a link: http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2010/11/special-comment-on-using-movie.html
This website is of course ABOVE THE LAW.com (hereinafter "ATL"). It is worth noting that I read this blog somewhat frequently--every couple of days, whenever I become sufficiently bored, or run out of other interesting websites/blogs/news to read. I will admit that this blog is sometimes entertaining. It has made me laugh on more than one occasion. Its information is presented in a very reader-friendly way. The articles are never absurdly long (though I will argue that the longer the article, the closer it gets to truth) and are often about sex, or drugs, or lawyers behaving badly, or judges "benchslapping" them, or celebrities' legal affairs, or gossip about all of the nearly 200 law schools accredited by the ABA. It seems written by people who went to Harvard or Yale and are basically elitist, and proud of it (or at least exhibiting shades of ironic shame for blogging about law rather than practicing it). I will admit: this site has tons of ads, and is probably a very successful blog in the monetary sense, which seems like an oxymoron. It has many readers--but many of the readers are repeat visitors who leave stupid comments after every article. Still, it can be exciting to know your school has been written about--that everyone in the country/world who goes to this site (because I do think it is the most popular website for people seeking legal gossip) will know that yes, your school invites clothing companies to hold photo shoots of people in their underwear simulating sex in the cellar portion of the library (my "office," as it were, that I perhaps adopted in the hopes of living out such fantasies). Fortunately, we did not report our public service grant situation, as had been suggested at a couple meetings of students fighting it--that was one of my proudest moments as a member of this student body this year. I told people to fight the administration, and they all said no, it's hopeless, nothing will change, and guess what, it did change. Of course, next summer it will not be the same, and one wonders whether we will fight again. But I digress. ATL loves to make fun of our school because it is ranked #67. ATL loves to make fun of law school in general though, and it is leading the charge of the scamblogs, since it is the most visible online presence of this movement. Note the recent article on the lawsuit undertaken against Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Yeah, I wish there were a way for me to sue my school for punitive damages. I'm sure that's going to work out for them.
Scamblogs basically aver that students will not get jobs when they graduate, and who knows when this pattern will end. I know that people graduating right now (Class of 2011) have told me they have basically been ignored. I do not know many graduating 3Ls, but I did not know any who were "living the dream" of a law student--that is, working as a summer associate after 2L, being offered a position to start in the August or September after graduating, with a stipend for June and July to study for the Bar, and all BarBri tuition paid for--perhaps that is the norm at the higher-ranked schools, but that is not the norm where I go, and you need to be at the top of your class. So if you do well--maybe the 1 in 4 students who will graduate in the top 25%--it really doesn't seem so bad. Yet if you do that well, and can't find work, it's certainly frustrating. People in this position have the greatest cause for complaint. And our class is over 400 students. So 300 people in our class will not be in such an ideal position. We have to get creative.
Scamblogs do not talk about this issue very much. They focus on the "average" student at whatever school they are mentioning. ATL is the "super-scamblog" because it has adopted the philosophy that law school is basically a bad idea. There was a recent article about how prospective students will not be swayed by scamblogs, and this is also an intelligent observation. Am I the only one who, in the years (yes, from 2008 - 2010 I studied for the LSAT and took it twice, and could not get the 170+ necessary to become an "elite" future member of the legal profession) leading up to application, acceptance, and enrollment heard the all-too frequent rallying cry, "Don't go to law school?" I remember sitting in on a class at Loyola Law School, with a professor whose greatness was impressed upon me in those 90 minutes (Laurie Levenson), who called on the five or six of us who were visiting to ask about various points of Criminal Procedure, and then at one point said, "Well class, do you think they should do it?" And they all said aloud, in unison, "Don't go to law school!" Those five words have become such a buzz phrase. It was a remarkable experience that I could not take to heart, because I had spent all this money applying, and flying down to L.A. and renting a convertible, and this was my plan. One cannot shelf their plan before they have even started, particularly when they spent so much time getting ready for it. Prospective students think the hiring patterns will turn around by the time they finish, and they also think they will do well enough that they will not have to worry.
One could write much more about ATL, but there are more egregious websites for comment. One of the problems with scamblogs is that they are tasteless. They use foul language, and whatever intelligence they display is marred by the slip-shod nature of their writing, which leads to the direct inference that, if they are hosting a scamblog, they went to law school, and did not get a job, and want to take it out on the world. The inference is that they may not have been one of the best students--they may have been exactly the type of sucker they write about--doesn't know what they want to do with their lives, not necessarily sure they want to be an attorney from birth on, see that a J.D. is a relatively quick degree to get that doesn't require mathematical/scientific/technical college major background, think that law school is a ticket on the gravy train. They're not crazy--really, they're not--there are too many unemployed law students out there for them to be crazy--but their quest for transparency is, shall we say, compromised by their presentation.
But there is one blog that ATL frequently links to, and it is generally of a higher literary quality than the others that will be mentioned later. It is called THE PEOPLE'S THERAPIST (hereinafter "TPT") and it is written by a guy who went to a top law school, then worked at a large private law firm for several years then went to med school to become a psychiatrist because he hated the legal profession so much. This is a very personal blog--and in a certain sense I appreciate the brute force honesty and personal history that is offered by its author--but man does it hit you over the head! Many people will frequently mention that many attorneys have drinking and drug problems, and that it is a miserable profession. TPT is specifically dedicated to spreading this idea. Most of the posts that ATL links to are about why students should drop out. TPT's author seems to think that his ideas hold true for everyone. In a sense, this is how great writers become successful. They forge a connection with their readers by showing that they share the same feelings and have felt the same way when faced with a particular situation. But there is a difference between persuasive, enjoyable writing, and the rhetoric of brainwashing. This author may be happy now, but he is not a great writer. He is a better writer than most bloggers out there, but he does not affect me. He does not say every potential lawyer should become a psychiatrist (and there are obvious similarities between these two "counseling" professions) but he does say that law school can be a huge waste of time and money and that you should be focusing on doing what you love. (I will reserve my personal comment on this issue until the end of this post.) Basically, if you want to be a lawyer then you should not read this blog because he will try to convince you that you are making a big mistake because he didn't like working in the atmosphere that most law students dream about (where you are worked to death and make enough money to subsidize a fairly lavish lifestyle). Most law students don't have a reasonable shot at this kind of work, and this blog seems to stand for the idea that, if they did have a 3.9, journal, and top 15 school, and they could work at Skadden, etc., they would hate it anyways, so they should just quit. If you don't want this kind of work the blog is basically inapplicable and does not comment on the poverty aspect that other scamblogs are so effective at presenting. Reading all of these blogs makes me hate my life, but reading this one in particular upsets me because the author needs to point out how great his credentials are in order to appear persuasive. I do not advertise my academic credentials on Flying Houses (but you can probably figure out my history if you read the posts). My hope is that my writing speaks for itself.
But now unfortunately, we must move into darker territory. Our first stop on this tour of Hell is "Temporary Attorney." I first became aware of this site when trying to figure out who our President was, and what she did, and why there was so much antipathy for her. This is what I found:
http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/2010/07/joan-wexler-of-crooklyn-law-school.html
I think some of my fellow students used this information when we fought for the public service grant. This is a really upsetting story in no small part because of the picture. Why not use a real picture? The writing is flanked with urban dictionary prose, and may justifiably be deemed "alarmist," but is not totally devoid of persuasive qualities. Yeah, I totally agree she should take a paycut--but many of these sites just point to a salary and never say what should be a reasonable one. Of course, any compensation over $500k is too much, but people in this world dream of "big money" and for some 500k is not enough. Once you are used to making it, a pay cut is painful. I used to make $36,000/year + bonuses. That was straight out of college. Now six years later I am making $12/hour through a public service grant, and I hope that I can get more than that once I pass the Bar. There is no way for me to support myself (in NYC) on these wages. One can support oneself on $500,000/year, but if one has expensive mortgages, and all of the other accoutrements to a high-class lifestyle (if you go out for every meal, and they all cost $300-$1,000), it is difficult to go back to that previous life. But this does not mean I am sympathetic. Our President's salary is unconscionable, and should be scaled back by at least 50%. If she makes more than the President of the U.S., it does not seem fair. Our school is not as complicated a venture as our country.
Mainly, Temporary Attorney focuses on the jobs available for unemployed/underemployed J.D.'s, i.e. Robert Half, which was responsible for supporting and killing my L.A. dream. I am scared that I will have to resort to their services five years after my last position worked through them, but I digress. Temporary Attorney also focuses on people like our President, who make too much money, and who lead to the further inference that law school is indeed a scam where professors and administrators get paid very well to delude students into thinking they are making a brilliant life decision, when in fact they are basically killing themselves in a much less fun way than going on a Chris Farley-esque bender (which has always been my personal plan). It is not the most offensive of scamblogs. But it has been useful as a link for me to find the more egregious ones.
There are too many scamblogs out there to try and review so I will focus on the links that have been updated most recently. One of the blogs, "The Jobless Juris Doctor," has stopped writing about the issue after 18 months. I agree that is long enough to run one of these blogs. You can only repeat variations on the same theme so many times. "Esquire Painting" is an affecting blog written by a person who was 300K in student debt. It is a very creative blog, one of which I would usually approve. But as personal as Flying Houses gets, I do not venture into such sheer autobiography--that is reserved for literature--and am not sure what I can get out of reading such a blog as that. "First Tier Toilet!" boasts a well-placed exclamation point, but seems to want to post many pictures of roaches and other bugs. There was one post decrying ATL, which was nice, and in general this site sometimes puts together an intelligent argument. It is not unpleasant to look at, except for the bugs. "Legal Nihilist"'s last post talks about how scamblogging and surfing these different blogs is unhealthy and a waste of time and how it is time to get over the injustice of what was done to them. This is perhaps the most uplifting thing I have read on the topic. "Tales of a Fourth-Tier Nothing" gets my vote for best blog name and is not all that offensive. There are many others that are in this category--fairly well-written, not offensive to the senses--but in general, reading these blogs will make you depressed.
There are two more I want to focus on: the first is the worst--"Third Tier Reality." This is an extremely offensive blog because it posts a picture of fecal matter with each new article. It is noteworthy for its narrow focus--it only profiles schools, and individuals, who are supposedly contributing to this scam. I must admit, I am impressed by the number of posts--but I am not impressed by the writing quality. Of special note is the profile on our school: http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2010/07/deconstructing-crooklyn-aka-brooklyn.html
This post will make you sick if you go here. The entering class profile is right on the money. We have too many students. They should cut it down to about 200. But I don't think they can without majorly re-organizing the infrastructure of the school. It is designed to be this big. I have mentioned before the claustrophobia at this school, the feeling that sometimes you cannot breathe because you are surrounded by too many other students in the halls. But I am not here to criticize, I am here to point out the unoriginality. The Jessica Alba line under "intangibles" is similarly repeated in other school profiles. Our tuition is ridiculous, but this blog will point to any school's tuition, even if it is $10,000 less (like DePaul's is), and say it is too high. The blog also does not take scholarships into account. Neither do most scamblogs. The semi-recent article in the NY TIMES about this issue points out this is other "scam-like" behavior, but in general, when your load is $28,000 less, it at least appears that the school is not out to get you and actually doesn't want their school to put you into a lifetime of debt servitude. This fact is frequently glossed over. The comments on this site (like many others I presume) are where the real zingers fly. Over and over again it is just terribly depressing. At least one person in the comments says they are an intern and it can't be so hard to get a job as everyone says it is--nervous energy and overanalysis.
"Shilling Me Softly" also has an impressive number of posts but appears to be similar to a few other blogs in that they are basically a Jr. version of ATL (the same goes for "But I Did Everything Right!"). The last one I want to mention is "S*** Law Jobs" which posts ads from craigslist from across the country that pay terrible wages. This site is mainly good for a perverse version of comic relief. But I really can't write anymore about this. I envisioned this post as something great, but I see now it is futile to take these actual bloggers to task about specific things they have written, and it is more important to present my personal feelings on the matter as a person who has just finished their first year at a much-maligned institution:
My feelings change on a day-to-day basis. There is no consistency to my internal sense of happiness. To work with an impending sense of doom is nearly impossible, but I have done it all year long. People tell me I worry too much. Maybe I am just too gullible a person. Maybe I would be better off if I had never discovered any of this information. As a person who has complained about their life all along, and who has joked about suicide for approximately 18 years, and who has already gone broke once, I still have never been in debt until now, and the feeling is a bit overwhelming, even when it is only 20K at this point and I would be able to pay off at least a little bit of it pretty soon. But I would go back to that life I had before, where my market value was $13/hour. Cynical scambloggers will say, "$13 is better than the $10 you'll be making in s*** law!" Plus there's no extra debt. However, most will make more than $10. Actually, it seems not totally unlikely that I would be qualified with this degree to receive a salary in the 50-60K range. And I know it is hard to find a job now, but I want to ask everyone--have you ever tried to be published?
Which is worse--the legal industry or the publishing industry? You tell me. I'd love to be a literary agent. I won't stop writing. I came into this school knowing that. Some people say that work as an attorney is too time-consuming and you will never find the time to write. Whatever. All the jobs I could find were boring, and legal work may be boring at times, but at least it deals with semi-interesting subject matter and real issues that figure imporantly in other people's lives. It is a profession where you can "make a difference." The difficult thing to do is balance the terrible financial situation it may end in with the possible benefits of personal fulfillment and more lucrative job opportunities. If I said I hated it, I hated it because of all of this bad news flying around. It was yet another time in my life when I made a decision that seemed like my destiny but I was slapped into the reality that I am indeed a superfluous human being.
I don't give up on writing because it is a form of therapy. Law school is not a form of therapy. But I do think it is harder to make it as a "writer" than it is to make it as a "lawyer" and that is pretty much the last reason I have for not feeling totally demoralized. So thanks for all the great information. I have really appreciated becoming depressed. At least I am not wearing horse-blinders (unless the information has actually been blown out of proportion, in which case I was brainwashed--but I felt uneasy enough about my personal finances 10 months ago to know otherwise). Mission accomplished, law schools know they need to be more transparent and maybe they will actually be regulated more closely. I come to no thesis in this post. I cannot ascertain veracity until I am in the situation myself. Apparently, it is a hopeless one.
I am talking about scamblogs, of course. These are blogs that focus on law school. One wishes there were more blogs like Flying Houses that can help you with 10 different case briefs written in a creative way. However, most blogs about law school focus on the detriment it is causing to individuals. These blogs are united in a common cause for law schools to be more transparent in the information they present to prospective students. They focus intensely on the employment rate of the class 9 months after graduation. They suggest that it does not show what percentage of that number (which is almost always between 90-99%) is employed outside the legal profession. They suggest that it is a voluntary survey that does not take into account the students that don't respond. They suggest that there are too many law schools and too many law school students and not enough legal positions to go around. And also that law school is too expensive and not worth going into debt over unless maybe you are going to one of the top 15 schools in the nation. Sometimes debt goes from $100,000 - $200,000. Mine is $60,000, plus whatever interest accrues by then. This is assuming my parents are able to support me for the next two years (and time to study for the Bar, and $3,000 for the Barbri course, and however long it takes me to find a job in NYC, plus rent). What happens when I go broke and I need to start paying off my loans? The only positive thing I have heard about loans is that you can defer their payment because of "hardship" (i.e. lack of employment). No matter what, I do not want to go into any greater debt than $60,000--that scares me enough as it is. And here I may not qualify for my merit scholarship renewal (grades are released in a week...perhaps grades will be released before this post is actually posted) and I could lose all of my funding, or at least a significant amount. If my grades aren't that great, and if I'm not at a top 15 school (or not even a top 50 school), and it's getting expensive for everyone involved, is it really worth it to go on? Will I ever get a job? Who knows. Impossible to know until you are faced with the situation. But it appears the odds are against us.
If I were to write a letter seeking advice from someone writing or posting on one of these sites, it is clear they would tell me to drop out. Who knows if I will get the same response from a person affiliated with my institution--a career counselor, a faculty member--if I reveal the same facts. My guess is that they will say, "Do what you really want to do--if your heart is set on being an attorney, then don't give up because eventually things will work out." I know that if I try to bring it up to my Dad, he will say, "There are so many other jobs you can get with your degree if you finish it out." Or if I tell him I want to quit he says, "What are you going to do then--work at a restaurant for the rest of your life?" And I say, "I don't know, I'll figure something out."
It appears to me this post might be most powerful if written entirely as a hypothetical dialogue--one of the few skills I have developed as a creative writer, the ability to present two sides to an issue--but no, this is a statement about scamblogs, and as such, it must go into an analysis of several websites, and attempt to answer the question, "How bad is it out there, really?"
We begin with the most popular of all sites, previously mentioned here in a couple posts, but most prominently back in my first post since Flying Houses went on "academic hiatus"--here is a link: http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2010/11/special-comment-on-using-movie.html
This website is of course ABOVE THE LAW.com (hereinafter "ATL"). It is worth noting that I read this blog somewhat frequently--every couple of days, whenever I become sufficiently bored, or run out of other interesting websites/blogs/news to read. I will admit that this blog is sometimes entertaining. It has made me laugh on more than one occasion. Its information is presented in a very reader-friendly way. The articles are never absurdly long (though I will argue that the longer the article, the closer it gets to truth) and are often about sex, or drugs, or lawyers behaving badly, or judges "benchslapping" them, or celebrities' legal affairs, or gossip about all of the nearly 200 law schools accredited by the ABA. It seems written by people who went to Harvard or Yale and are basically elitist, and proud of it (or at least exhibiting shades of ironic shame for blogging about law rather than practicing it). I will admit: this site has tons of ads, and is probably a very successful blog in the monetary sense, which seems like an oxymoron. It has many readers--but many of the readers are repeat visitors who leave stupid comments after every article. Still, it can be exciting to know your school has been written about--that everyone in the country/world who goes to this site (because I do think it is the most popular website for people seeking legal gossip) will know that yes, your school invites clothing companies to hold photo shoots of people in their underwear simulating sex in the cellar portion of the library (my "office," as it were, that I perhaps adopted in the hopes of living out such fantasies). Fortunately, we did not report our public service grant situation, as had been suggested at a couple meetings of students fighting it--that was one of my proudest moments as a member of this student body this year. I told people to fight the administration, and they all said no, it's hopeless, nothing will change, and guess what, it did change. Of course, next summer it will not be the same, and one wonders whether we will fight again. But I digress. ATL loves to make fun of our school because it is ranked #67. ATL loves to make fun of law school in general though, and it is leading the charge of the scamblogs, since it is the most visible online presence of this movement. Note the recent article on the lawsuit undertaken against Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Yeah, I wish there were a way for me to sue my school for punitive damages. I'm sure that's going to work out for them.
Scamblogs basically aver that students will not get jobs when they graduate, and who knows when this pattern will end. I know that people graduating right now (Class of 2011) have told me they have basically been ignored. I do not know many graduating 3Ls, but I did not know any who were "living the dream" of a law student--that is, working as a summer associate after 2L, being offered a position to start in the August or September after graduating, with a stipend for June and July to study for the Bar, and all BarBri tuition paid for--perhaps that is the norm at the higher-ranked schools, but that is not the norm where I go, and you need to be at the top of your class. So if you do well--maybe the 1 in 4 students who will graduate in the top 25%--it really doesn't seem so bad. Yet if you do that well, and can't find work, it's certainly frustrating. People in this position have the greatest cause for complaint. And our class is over 400 students. So 300 people in our class will not be in such an ideal position. We have to get creative.
Scamblogs do not talk about this issue very much. They focus on the "average" student at whatever school they are mentioning. ATL is the "super-scamblog" because it has adopted the philosophy that law school is basically a bad idea. There was a recent article about how prospective students will not be swayed by scamblogs, and this is also an intelligent observation. Am I the only one who, in the years (yes, from 2008 - 2010 I studied for the LSAT and took it twice, and could not get the 170+ necessary to become an "elite" future member of the legal profession) leading up to application, acceptance, and enrollment heard the all-too frequent rallying cry, "Don't go to law school?" I remember sitting in on a class at Loyola Law School, with a professor whose greatness was impressed upon me in those 90 minutes (Laurie Levenson), who called on the five or six of us who were visiting to ask about various points of Criminal Procedure, and then at one point said, "Well class, do you think they should do it?" And they all said aloud, in unison, "Don't go to law school!" Those five words have become such a buzz phrase. It was a remarkable experience that I could not take to heart, because I had spent all this money applying, and flying down to L.A. and renting a convertible, and this was my plan. One cannot shelf their plan before they have even started, particularly when they spent so much time getting ready for it. Prospective students think the hiring patterns will turn around by the time they finish, and they also think they will do well enough that they will not have to worry.
One could write much more about ATL, but there are more egregious websites for comment. One of the problems with scamblogs is that they are tasteless. They use foul language, and whatever intelligence they display is marred by the slip-shod nature of their writing, which leads to the direct inference that, if they are hosting a scamblog, they went to law school, and did not get a job, and want to take it out on the world. The inference is that they may not have been one of the best students--they may have been exactly the type of sucker they write about--doesn't know what they want to do with their lives, not necessarily sure they want to be an attorney from birth on, see that a J.D. is a relatively quick degree to get that doesn't require mathematical/scientific/technical college major background, think that law school is a ticket on the gravy train. They're not crazy--really, they're not--there are too many unemployed law students out there for them to be crazy--but their quest for transparency is, shall we say, compromised by their presentation.
But there is one blog that ATL frequently links to, and it is generally of a higher literary quality than the others that will be mentioned later. It is called THE PEOPLE'S THERAPIST (hereinafter "TPT") and it is written by a guy who went to a top law school, then worked at a large private law firm for several years then went to med school to become a psychiatrist because he hated the legal profession so much. This is a very personal blog--and in a certain sense I appreciate the brute force honesty and personal history that is offered by its author--but man does it hit you over the head! Many people will frequently mention that many attorneys have drinking and drug problems, and that it is a miserable profession. TPT is specifically dedicated to spreading this idea. Most of the posts that ATL links to are about why students should drop out. TPT's author seems to think that his ideas hold true for everyone. In a sense, this is how great writers become successful. They forge a connection with their readers by showing that they share the same feelings and have felt the same way when faced with a particular situation. But there is a difference between persuasive, enjoyable writing, and the rhetoric of brainwashing. This author may be happy now, but he is not a great writer. He is a better writer than most bloggers out there, but he does not affect me. He does not say every potential lawyer should become a psychiatrist (and there are obvious similarities between these two "counseling" professions) but he does say that law school can be a huge waste of time and money and that you should be focusing on doing what you love. (I will reserve my personal comment on this issue until the end of this post.) Basically, if you want to be a lawyer then you should not read this blog because he will try to convince you that you are making a big mistake because he didn't like working in the atmosphere that most law students dream about (where you are worked to death and make enough money to subsidize a fairly lavish lifestyle). Most law students don't have a reasonable shot at this kind of work, and this blog seems to stand for the idea that, if they did have a 3.9, journal, and top 15 school, and they could work at Skadden, etc., they would hate it anyways, so they should just quit. If you don't want this kind of work the blog is basically inapplicable and does not comment on the poverty aspect that other scamblogs are so effective at presenting. Reading all of these blogs makes me hate my life, but reading this one in particular upsets me because the author needs to point out how great his credentials are in order to appear persuasive. I do not advertise my academic credentials on Flying Houses (but you can probably figure out my history if you read the posts). My hope is that my writing speaks for itself.
But now unfortunately, we must move into darker territory. Our first stop on this tour of Hell is "Temporary Attorney." I first became aware of this site when trying to figure out who our President was, and what she did, and why there was so much antipathy for her. This is what I found:
http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/2010/07/joan-wexler-of-crooklyn-law-school.html
I think some of my fellow students used this information when we fought for the public service grant. This is a really upsetting story in no small part because of the picture. Why not use a real picture? The writing is flanked with urban dictionary prose, and may justifiably be deemed "alarmist," but is not totally devoid of persuasive qualities. Yeah, I totally agree she should take a paycut--but many of these sites just point to a salary and never say what should be a reasonable one. Of course, any compensation over $500k is too much, but people in this world dream of "big money" and for some 500k is not enough. Once you are used to making it, a pay cut is painful. I used to make $36,000/year + bonuses. That was straight out of college. Now six years later I am making $12/hour through a public service grant, and I hope that I can get more than that once I pass the Bar. There is no way for me to support myself (in NYC) on these wages. One can support oneself on $500,000/year, but if one has expensive mortgages, and all of the other accoutrements to a high-class lifestyle (if you go out for every meal, and they all cost $300-$1,000), it is difficult to go back to that previous life. But this does not mean I am sympathetic. Our President's salary is unconscionable, and should be scaled back by at least 50%. If she makes more than the President of the U.S., it does not seem fair. Our school is not as complicated a venture as our country.
Mainly, Temporary Attorney focuses on the jobs available for unemployed/underemployed J.D.'s, i.e. Robert Half, which was responsible for supporting and killing my L.A. dream. I am scared that I will have to resort to their services five years after my last position worked through them, but I digress. Temporary Attorney also focuses on people like our President, who make too much money, and who lead to the further inference that law school is indeed a scam where professors and administrators get paid very well to delude students into thinking they are making a brilliant life decision, when in fact they are basically killing themselves in a much less fun way than going on a Chris Farley-esque bender (which has always been my personal plan). It is not the most offensive of scamblogs. But it has been useful as a link for me to find the more egregious ones.
There are too many scamblogs out there to try and review so I will focus on the links that have been updated most recently. One of the blogs, "The Jobless Juris Doctor," has stopped writing about the issue after 18 months. I agree that is long enough to run one of these blogs. You can only repeat variations on the same theme so many times. "Esquire Painting" is an affecting blog written by a person who was 300K in student debt. It is a very creative blog, one of which I would usually approve. But as personal as Flying Houses gets, I do not venture into such sheer autobiography--that is reserved for literature--and am not sure what I can get out of reading such a blog as that. "First Tier Toilet!" boasts a well-placed exclamation point, but seems to want to post many pictures of roaches and other bugs. There was one post decrying ATL, which was nice, and in general this site sometimes puts together an intelligent argument. It is not unpleasant to look at, except for the bugs. "Legal Nihilist"'s last post talks about how scamblogging and surfing these different blogs is unhealthy and a waste of time and how it is time to get over the injustice of what was done to them. This is perhaps the most uplifting thing I have read on the topic. "Tales of a Fourth-Tier Nothing" gets my vote for best blog name and is not all that offensive. There are many others that are in this category--fairly well-written, not offensive to the senses--but in general, reading these blogs will make you depressed.
There are two more I want to focus on: the first is the worst--"Third Tier Reality." This is an extremely offensive blog because it posts a picture of fecal matter with each new article. It is noteworthy for its narrow focus--it only profiles schools, and individuals, who are supposedly contributing to this scam. I must admit, I am impressed by the number of posts--but I am not impressed by the writing quality. Of special note is the profile on our school: http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2010/07/deconstructing-crooklyn-aka-brooklyn.html
This post will make you sick if you go here. The entering class profile is right on the money. We have too many students. They should cut it down to about 200. But I don't think they can without majorly re-organizing the infrastructure of the school. It is designed to be this big. I have mentioned before the claustrophobia at this school, the feeling that sometimes you cannot breathe because you are surrounded by too many other students in the halls. But I am not here to criticize, I am here to point out the unoriginality. The Jessica Alba line under "intangibles" is similarly repeated in other school profiles. Our tuition is ridiculous, but this blog will point to any school's tuition, even if it is $10,000 less (like DePaul's is), and say it is too high. The blog also does not take scholarships into account. Neither do most scamblogs. The semi-recent article in the NY TIMES about this issue points out this is other "scam-like" behavior, but in general, when your load is $28,000 less, it at least appears that the school is not out to get you and actually doesn't want their school to put you into a lifetime of debt servitude. This fact is frequently glossed over. The comments on this site (like many others I presume) are where the real zingers fly. Over and over again it is just terribly depressing. At least one person in the comments says they are an intern and it can't be so hard to get a job as everyone says it is--nervous energy and overanalysis.
"Shilling Me Softly" also has an impressive number of posts but appears to be similar to a few other blogs in that they are basically a Jr. version of ATL (the same goes for "But I Did Everything Right!"). The last one I want to mention is "S*** Law Jobs" which posts ads from craigslist from across the country that pay terrible wages. This site is mainly good for a perverse version of comic relief. But I really can't write anymore about this. I envisioned this post as something great, but I see now it is futile to take these actual bloggers to task about specific things they have written, and it is more important to present my personal feelings on the matter as a person who has just finished their first year at a much-maligned institution:
My feelings change on a day-to-day basis. There is no consistency to my internal sense of happiness. To work with an impending sense of doom is nearly impossible, but I have done it all year long. People tell me I worry too much. Maybe I am just too gullible a person. Maybe I would be better off if I had never discovered any of this information. As a person who has complained about their life all along, and who has joked about suicide for approximately 18 years, and who has already gone broke once, I still have never been in debt until now, and the feeling is a bit overwhelming, even when it is only 20K at this point and I would be able to pay off at least a little bit of it pretty soon. But I would go back to that life I had before, where my market value was $13/hour. Cynical scambloggers will say, "$13 is better than the $10 you'll be making in s*** law!" Plus there's no extra debt. However, most will make more than $10. Actually, it seems not totally unlikely that I would be qualified with this degree to receive a salary in the 50-60K range. And I know it is hard to find a job now, but I want to ask everyone--have you ever tried to be published?
Which is worse--the legal industry or the publishing industry? You tell me. I'd love to be a literary agent. I won't stop writing. I came into this school knowing that. Some people say that work as an attorney is too time-consuming and you will never find the time to write. Whatever. All the jobs I could find were boring, and legal work may be boring at times, but at least it deals with semi-interesting subject matter and real issues that figure imporantly in other people's lives. It is a profession where you can "make a difference." The difficult thing to do is balance the terrible financial situation it may end in with the possible benefits of personal fulfillment and more lucrative job opportunities. If I said I hated it, I hated it because of all of this bad news flying around. It was yet another time in my life when I made a decision that seemed like my destiny but I was slapped into the reality that I am indeed a superfluous human being.
I don't give up on writing because it is a form of therapy. Law school is not a form of therapy. But I do think it is harder to make it as a "writer" than it is to make it as a "lawyer" and that is pretty much the last reason I have for not feeling totally demoralized. So thanks for all the great information. I have really appreciated becoming depressed. At least I am not wearing horse-blinders (unless the information has actually been blown out of proportion, in which case I was brainwashed--but I felt uneasy enough about my personal finances 10 months ago to know otherwise). Mission accomplished, law schools know they need to be more transparent and maybe they will actually be regulated more closely. I come to no thesis in this post. I cannot ascertain veracity until I am in the situation myself. Apparently, it is a hopeless one.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Reflection on 1L Year
It is not easy to sum up a 9-month period in a single blog post. Nor do I know exactly what I want to say about the experience of a law school student that I will not touch on in my next post (which is sure to be controversial, and as un-biased as humanly possible). I was considering writing about the top 10 cases we read, and a short description of why each was so great, and then a list of the 10 worst cases (the most painful to read). This might take a very long time. The fact is, I am planning on composing a follow-up to Think and Grow Poor: Cultivating a Negative Mental Attitude, otherwise known as my only work of creative non-fiction/memoir, about my experience of traveling to and living in California for 10 months. Ironically, this book, which has the present working title of Loss of Enjoyment of Life, may cover a period just as short and as packed with emotion. My grades will be released June 8 and then I will begin to know for sure whether this will be the end or not. To be sure, I had a better time in California, working dead-end office jobs and going on pointless interviews and waiting in traffic and never dating anyone but pining for my dermatologist. Clearly, it was much better than these past 9 months, which all too frequently involved reading and re-reading sentences and paragraphs of opinions, escaping a day or two or three later with zero to little recollection when called upon in class to recall a pivotal point of reasoning. I do not think I studied as effectively as I could have.
Believe me, I put in the time. I was not a slacker. My social life was almost laughable. I moved here for school (and with the hopes of practicing and living here for the long run) because it was where I had the most friends--but who could have guessed that 90% of them (those not extremely close, but more near acquaintance, perhaps signaled by a wave in the street) would ignore me as I attempted to reconnect.
Were the classes boring? At first, they were terribly boring! But a funny thing happened when we finished all of our assignments and entered exam period--I sort of began enjoying thinking about the topics we covered. This is a ridiculously dorky thing to write. But by the end of the year, I could think of a positive thing to say about Civil Procedure, Torts, Criminal Law, Contracts, and Constitutional Law. Property was probably my least favorite class, though ironically I think it may carry more than its fair load in the top 10 best list (and probably the top 10 worst list, too). The book we used was interesting, but the class was maddening. I could review all of the books we used too, but that would be boring. Better to focus on individual cases. Still, look at my last post about the ad coelum doctrine for proof that I am able to say something nice about even my least favorite class.
But yes, I was not a slacker, but my outlining was not where it needed to be. Outline early, outline often. That is my advice. My outlines were all unmanageably long, particularly spring semester (Con Law-74 pages; Contracts-96 pages; Property-98 pages). Fall semester they were all in the 50-60 page range. This led to a lot of insecurity.
I watched a lot of Netflix, and I will probably watch too much Netflix forever or until I get a TV with cable or something. I watched almost everything on my computer, and worked on this computer, and it cost about $500 last August, and it has had its share of word processing malfunctions, but never anything truly serious, and so I have been lucky. I also ate in front of it often and there are probably many little crumbs in the keyboard. It should probably be cleaned, but who knows if I ever will get around to this.
I was not very good about making friends with my classmates. But let it be known that if I didn't suffer from a chemical imbalance or manic depression or bipolar disorder on an ultra-ultra rapid cycle or whatever you want to call it, I am sure I could be a happy and healthy and social individual. I also would have been a more productive law student. I did not know any other classmates specifically suffering from depression as intensely as myself (that I could tell...), but believe me it is an impediment to success when every other day you go to bed praying that you will not have to wake up in the morning and endure another charade of the professor's question-and-answer session or unbelievably dull lecture. It is also an impediment to making friends because depression results in a loss of speech. And while people will generally be nice to quiet people, a person has to carve out a personality. And people will not generally want to surround themselves with people who feel uncomfortable, because their lack of comfort spreads, like an infectious disease. One might be able to say this feeling pervades law school classrooms and that few will be totally impervious to a moment or two of weakness by way of osmosis. But those without any "clinical" hang-ups stand a better chance of success.
Really most of what I would want to say will be included in Loss of Enjoyment of Life. Let us hope that it will be published. How many unemployed law students turn to literature in their darkest hour? Probably too many, like everything else in this world:
10) Christian v. Mattell (286 F.3d 1118) (9th Cir. 2003) (Civil Procedure)
The first sentence of this opinion gives a sense of the greatness to come: "It is difficult to imagine that the Barbie doll, so perfect in her sculpture and presentation, and so comfortable in every setting, from "California girl" to "Chief Executive Officer Barbie," could spawn such acrimonious litigation and such egregious conduct on the part of her challenger."
Believe me, I put in the time. I was not a slacker. My social life was almost laughable. I moved here for school (and with the hopes of practicing and living here for the long run) because it was where I had the most friends--but who could have guessed that 90% of them (those not extremely close, but more near acquaintance, perhaps signaled by a wave in the street) would ignore me as I attempted to reconnect.
Were the classes boring? At first, they were terribly boring! But a funny thing happened when we finished all of our assignments and entered exam period--I sort of began enjoying thinking about the topics we covered. This is a ridiculously dorky thing to write. But by the end of the year, I could think of a positive thing to say about Civil Procedure, Torts, Criminal Law, Contracts, and Constitutional Law. Property was probably my least favorite class, though ironically I think it may carry more than its fair load in the top 10 best list (and probably the top 10 worst list, too). The book we used was interesting, but the class was maddening. I could review all of the books we used too, but that would be boring. Better to focus on individual cases. Still, look at my last post about the ad coelum doctrine for proof that I am able to say something nice about even my least favorite class.
But yes, I was not a slacker, but my outlining was not where it needed to be. Outline early, outline often. That is my advice. My outlines were all unmanageably long, particularly spring semester (Con Law-74 pages; Contracts-96 pages; Property-98 pages). Fall semester they were all in the 50-60 page range. This led to a lot of insecurity.
I watched a lot of Netflix, and I will probably watch too much Netflix forever or until I get a TV with cable or something. I watched almost everything on my computer, and worked on this computer, and it cost about $500 last August, and it has had its share of word processing malfunctions, but never anything truly serious, and so I have been lucky. I also ate in front of it often and there are probably many little crumbs in the keyboard. It should probably be cleaned, but who knows if I ever will get around to this.
I was not very good about making friends with my classmates. But let it be known that if I didn't suffer from a chemical imbalance or manic depression or bipolar disorder on an ultra-ultra rapid cycle or whatever you want to call it, I am sure I could be a happy and healthy and social individual. I also would have been a more productive law student. I did not know any other classmates specifically suffering from depression as intensely as myself (that I could tell...), but believe me it is an impediment to success when every other day you go to bed praying that you will not have to wake up in the morning and endure another charade of the professor's question-and-answer session or unbelievably dull lecture. It is also an impediment to making friends because depression results in a loss of speech. And while people will generally be nice to quiet people, a person has to carve out a personality. And people will not generally want to surround themselves with people who feel uncomfortable, because their lack of comfort spreads, like an infectious disease. One might be able to say this feeling pervades law school classrooms and that few will be totally impervious to a moment or two of weakness by way of osmosis. But those without any "clinical" hang-ups stand a better chance of success.
Really most of what I would want to say will be included in Loss of Enjoyment of Life. Let us hope that it will be published. How many unemployed law students turn to literature in their darkest hour? Probably too many, like everything else in this world:
10) Christian v. Mattell (286 F.3d 1118) (9th Cir. 2003) (Civil Procedure)
The first sentence of this opinion gives a sense of the greatness to come: "It is difficult to imagine that the Barbie doll, so perfect in her sculpture and presentation, and so comfortable in every setting, from "California girl" to "Chief Executive Officer Barbie," could spawn such acrimonious litigation and such egregious conduct on the part of her challenger."
This is a case about Rule 11 sanctions, arguably the most interesting topic in Civil Procedure. In 1990, a young woman at USC created a cheerleader doll, and in 1996, Mattel released "Cool Blue" Barbie, which looked very similar to this doll (a cheerleader, with face paint), and Christian sued Mattel for $2.4 billion and injunctive relief. The attorney she hired, Hicks, is the subject of the opinion:
"At a follow-up counsel meeting required by a local rule, Mattel's counsel attempted to convince Hicks that his complaint was frivolous. During the videotaped meeting...Hicks declined Mattel's invitation to inspect the dolls and, later during the meeting, hurled them in disgust from a conference table."
This was a fun case to read, and Civil Procedure was a more interesting course than it appeared at first blush, because it could also be named "Lawyers behaving badly." Plus I sometimes fear (or fantasize?) that I will become a terrible attorney in the future and bring stupid lawsuits and do things like throw Barbies around an office. The image alone is what ranks this case #10.
9) Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co. (114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549) (1974) (Contracts)
This is a rather famous Contracts case that I think most classes will read. I think it would make a very good movie. It would be a very sad story. It is about a young woman who came to New Hampshire from Costa Rica in 1964 and went to night school 5 nights a week from 7-10. At 11, she would go to work for $2.79/hour on a degreasing machine (whatever that is). Her supervisor at work made passes at her, and she rejected his requests for a date. Then, he demoted her to a sewing machine, which paid $1.99/hour. She was later fired, then reinstated, then called in sick, then found unconscious on the bathroom floor, then called in sick again, then deemed a voluntary quit.
The case is famous for stating this rule of contract law: "In all employment contracts, whether at will or for a definite term, the employer's interest in running his business as he sees fit must be balanced against the interest of the employee in maintaining his employment, and the public's interest in maintaining a proper balance between the two."
The dissent noted that there was a different way of looking at the case, and that the supervisor was not quite the monster the majority opinion made him out to be. This is another reason the story behind this case would make an interesting movie. I thought it was fun to read because it was just so messed up. "Oh, you don't want to go out with me? Well, you're fired."
8) Grutter v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 306) (2003) (Constitutional Law)
Along with Bakke and Gratz, these three cases represent the majority of the Court's jurisprudence on the topic of affirmative action in educational settings. The other two cases rule that affirmative action is unconstitutional--because they implement some type of numbers-based acceptance procedure for minority students. Those dealt with the UC-Davis School of Medicine and University of Michigan's undergraduate institution, respectively. This one deals with University of Michigan's law school--and their method of implementing affirmative action is more holistic, less numbers-based, and is therefore valid. My analysis of this case may be a bit simplistic, but I believe it is accurate. The fun of reading this case primarily turns on its being about law school admissions and being a point of study for law students.
It was also probably the only moment all year that I uttered anything close to a controversial comment during one of our classes. I actually volunteered when asked a question about this case, and the professor asked me, "So basically, if you are a minority, and you apply to law school, and your score is above a certain threshold, and your GPA is above a certain threshold as well, the admissions office can basically accept you automatically, does that sound accurate to you?" I said, "I think it's pretty much done that way." He seemed a bit upset that I said this, and said my view was probably not exactly the way these things happened in real life. What I would have liked to have offered was this: I am not a minority. But, I know I called BLS after I got a 158 on the LSAT and asked, "So, if I apply, and I have a 158 and a 3.6, what are my chances?" They said, "Get a 160." I retook the LSAT and got a 163. I got into BLS with a scholarship. I think everyone with my stats automatically got accepted with a scholarship. Maybe I'm wrong. But minority or not, I think this was pretty much the way the admissions office worked. It would have been interesting to comment on the concept of "minority"--just because I am a white male, can't I still be a minority? Aside from the obvious issue of sexual orientation (which apparently works similar to race, but with less aggressive reforms in terms of remedial legislation), am I still stuck with all of the associated past history of favored treatment? Am I rich? Have I always been picked first for the kickball team? I guess the answer is this: I am just one person, and the vast majority of minorities have suffered from real discrimination that does not apply differently from person to person, but is widespread across an entire class of individuals. It is too bad I will not be born in 2028, which is when O'Connor says affirmative action will no longer be necessary to achieve diversity. Of course there is always the possibility of reincarnation.
7) Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. v. American Cyanamid Co. (916 F.2d 1174) (7th Cir. 1990) (Torts)
I am mainly picking this one because I had to include one case written by Posner. I have to include him because I am proud of him for being such an important figurehead over the past 40 years and for staying based in Chicago. I am surprised he was never appointed to the Supreme Court. Perhaps there was talk of it once. But anyways, this is a case about abnormally dangerous activity, an interesting topic in Torts. There is a train carrying liquid acrylonitrile that stops in Blue Island, and one day, workers notice a leak. This is a great case for Chicago culture as well. Posner cites a case about a hot air balloon landing in a rooftop garden in New York City in 1822. It was apparently a "paradigmatic case for strict liability," but its analogous quality appears elusive and was probably cited just because Posner is so awesome. Then near the end of the opinion, he comes to this conclusion:
"It is no more realistic to propose to reroute the shipment of all hazardous materials around Chicago than it is to propose the relocation of homes adjacent to the Blue Island switching yard to more distant suburbs. It may be less realistic. Brutal though it may seem to say it, the inappropriate use to which land is being put in the Blue Island yard and neighborhood may be, not the transportation of hazardous chemicals, but residential living. The analogy is to building your home between the runways of O'Hare."
6) Commonwealth v. Carroll (194 A.2d 911) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court) (1963) (Criminal Law)
This is a case where the defendant gets charged with first-degree murder and probably doesn't deserve it. It is then followed by a case where a defendant gets second-degree and totally deserves first-degree murder. The differences between the cases are egregious. In this one, the defendant is an Army veteran married to a wife with a schizoid personality disorder. She is made out to be a very annoying person. He then shoots her after an argument where she tells him she won't allow him to take a teaching position at night. They were about to fall sleep, in bed, and he was overtaken with a sudden urge--some form of temporary insanity, one might argue. The opinion seems to make clear that he deserves first-degree murder, even though he appears to have enough adequate justification that it might appear a less morally blameworthy crime. It is then followed by People v. Anderson, which was probably the single most brutal case we read all year long. A much less sympathetic defendant, and yet the court comes out with a lesser charge. The casebook argues that these decisions should be opposite. The casebook was written in part by my Criminal Law professor who was my favorite teacher all year, but he also ended up giving me my worst grade (I hope I don't do worse than C+ in any of my spring semester classes--whose grades come out June 8--19 days from now...). I truly believe I have a good understanding of Criminal Law, my grade notwithstanding. I was working with a diminished capacity. I could not sleep the night before. I fell asleep finally at 4 AM, woke up 3 hours later, trudged my way through the 3 hour exam, and wanted to go home and cry. I know depraved heart, malice aforethought, and felony murder like the back of my hand.
5) Hecht v. Superior Court (16 Cal.App.4th 836) (CA, 1993) (Property)
This was a case about the concept of “personhood” as property. “Personhood,” in this case, means sperm. It is about a guy named William E. Kane, who killed himself at age 48 in a Las Vegas hotel on October 30, 1991. Kane was a divorced attorney with two college-aged children, who had been living with a girlfriend, Deborah Hecht. He left her his sperm in a will so that she could impregnate herself with it. The trial court ruled in favor of his children, who wanted to have the sperm destroyed, apparently because they thought the idea of a child that would never know its father was unconscionable on moral grounds. The court of appeals rules that there is a property interest in sperm, and that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the sperm destroyed.
The chief appeal of reading this case is for all of the personal pathos it involves, including Kane’s suicide note, and a mysterious betrayal. Once again it is another case that would make a great movie. Kane wrote this letter to his children 9 days before he died:
“I address this to my children, because, although I have only two, Everett and Katy, it may be that Deborah will decide—as I hope she will—to have a child by me after my death. I’ve been assiduously generating frozen sperm samples for that eventuality. If she does, then this letter is for my posthumous offspring, as well, with the thought that I have loved you in my dreams, even though I never got to see you born. If you are receiving this letter, it means that I am dead—whether by my own hand or that of another makes very little difference. I feel that my time has come; and I wanted to leave you with something more than a dead enigma that was your father. I am inordinately proud of who I have been—what I made of me. I’m so proud of that that I would rather take my own life now than be ground into a mediocre existence by my enemies—who, because of my mistakes and bravado have gained the power to finish me.”
“After several pages of childhood memories and family history, the letter stated: ‘So why am I checking out now? Basically, betrayal, over and over again, has made me tired. I’ve picked up some heavyweight enemies along the way—ranging from the Kellys of the world, to crazies with guns, to insurance companies, to the lawyers that have sucked me dry…I don’t want to die as a tired, perhaps defeated and bitter old man. I’d rather end it like I have lived it—on my time, when and where I will, and while my life is still an object of self-sculpture—a personal creation with which I am still proud. In truth, death for me is not the opposite of life; it is a form of life’s punctuation.”
(I am sorry but I have to comment on just watching “Wheel of Fortune” now. On tonight’s episode, Vanna White missed a letter. It was left lit up after the next team spun, and when they tried to answer, she moved to touch the box and reveal the letter. At the end of the show, Pat Sajak said, “You know I have made a lot of mistakes over the years, but you almost never make a mistake. It’s good. It shows that you are a human, not that there was any doubt about that.” And it made me think of the Property case White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (9th Cir. 1993) in which Vanna White successfully sued Samsun g for depicting her as a robot in a commercial that said “Wheel of Fortune 2012, the longest running game show in history.” There is a great opinion by Judge Kozinski but I do not want to get side-tracked. I just thought it was extremely ironic and timely, how it made me think of another case from Property (and also Torts), and how the final puzzle answer was “Daily Blog.” I wonder if what Pat Sajak said was a reference to that case, or if he just meant it matter-of-factly, in that she was superhuman, or alien, not necessarily robot, or if he meant it as a seemingly innocent underhanded reference… .Truly the stars align for me to be writing with the TV on and that comment bearing so closely to the very topic I was writing about, at one of the very rare times that I will write a blog post about legal topics.)
I think that is all we need to say about that.
4) Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Arroll (Civ. Ct. of City of NY, 322 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1971) (Contracts); New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568 (1979) (Constitutional Law) (tie)
I live in an old building in Brooklyn. There is no A/C, and there is baseboard heat. My school owns this building and has not made improvements upon it. For our particular building, my roommate and I must pay the electric and gas bills. I didn't think it would be too tough. And it wasn't--until we started using the heat. Bills were about $50/month for electric and about $15/month for gas. (This is not about gas--I have no problems with that bill). My roommate and I split them and it added an extra $33/month onto our rent--not bad (but we don't have cable TV, just occassionally reliable wireless internet). In December, our Con Ed (electric) bill shot up to $148. In January, it reached $242. In February, it went up to $245. In March, it hit $299, and the bill said the previous two bills were just estimates, and the extra cost was to make up for that. Assuming $260/month, my roommate and I added $140/month to our rent. That is not an insignificant amount. I e-mailed Campus Services and asked why the bill was so expensive and they said it just was. I called Con Ed and asked why it was so expensive and they said it was comparable to the previous tenant's bills. Finally, when spring semester started, I got a $12 service charge from Con Ed because I had switched my bank account and forgot to update the routing number for direct-pay--but with a negligible delay of a day or two. My temper reached its peak as I argued with a customer service rep for about a half-hour about why she should remove the $12 charge. She said she couldn't without proof of the dates I changed the routing number, necessitating a trip to Citibank, and a fax--too much work for a $12 fee when one is in law school. The next day we had a snow day and I went to the Con Ed headquarters in downtown Brooklyn and made a second attempt--and the customer service rep's supervisor removed the charge in a matter of minutes, almost no questions asked. The lady I talked to the night before was so rude--she hung up at the end of the call, clearly frustrated by my inability to concede defeat of something so trivial as $12. I was so upset and angry that I went outside to smoke a cigarette around 11:00 at night. I remember it being very quiet, and very clean, and I remember watching the snowflakes fall gently, and heavily.
Enter end of March/beginning of April when my bills started to return to pedestrian levels, and I do not feel like I am stuck with a Hobson's choice of either freezing my ass off or accelerating my own financial ruin, and we read this case about a guy who is disputing his electric bills with Con Ed. You can imagine my excitement. Couldn't I sue Con Ed because their rates were unconscionable? No, but couldn't I sue BLS, because the heating bills are a result of failure to properly maintain the building? Undoubtedly not, also.
This case involved bills for the SUMMER months in 1968, 1969, and 1970. Unlike my situation, these bills greatly exceeded past bills for comparable periods. Arroll argued that the meter readings were wrong, and Con Ed argued there was no dispute on the issue--they were accurate. Arroll sent the President of Con Ed and the billing department a letter with a check for $35.00 explaining the situation and saying that he would offer the $35 as payment but would not pay any more than that. Con Ed deposited the check, but then continued to hound him for more payment. (I won't get into the technical details about "accord and satisfaction" and the language of the letter Arroll--an attorney if I remember correctly--used to create the contract). The court ruled in Arroll's favor, saying that if Con Ed took the money, they accepted the contract that Arroll had created, and he was therefore exempt from the extra bill amounts.
This is a case that might be decided differently today--or more likely would not arise, as Con Ed would know how to deal with it (one assumes). This is also a case that caused my professor to remark, "Don't try this at home!" I haven't bought an air conditioner yet, mainly because I am afraid of the higher bills again.
The other case we didn't really read--it just appeared in the book's notes following a case we studied more closely. But basically, the Supreme Court ruled that NYCTA's rule discriminating against methadone users was valid. No methadone users could become employed by NYCTA, because they wanted to ensure job and passenger safety. Do I personally agree? No. I see where they are coming from saying that there is always a risk of relapse of addiction, and it would be awful if you were on a subway train conducted by a junkie. There could be a major disaster. However, NYCTA is a huge employer, and it basically shows no respect for drug treatment programs by setting this rule and basically saying, "Yeah, we know you are trying to quit using, but, you can't work for us until you are free of methadone." There could be some better way to restrict the types of employment available, and more fine-tuned regulations. But the Court granted deference to NYCTA. Note that I am mentioning these two cases in a tie because they both hold personal value to me--obviously the Con Ed situation was relevant. Here, I am not a methadone user, but I do happen to work at the NYCTA's law department right now, and while the cases in our division would not relate to employment discrimination, it is certainly fun to see the place you work represented in a textbook.
3) Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (Constitutional Law)
This is a Commerce Clause case, the Court's most recent decision setting out another example of activity that affects interstate commerce and therefore may be regulated by Congress. There are perhaps a dozen or so famous Commerce Clause cases that every Con Law textbook will cover and every Con Law professor will test on. My big mistake on my Con Law exam was just sort of forgetting to write about it--typically, any Act or statute that Congress passes may be subject to analysis under the Commerce Clause. I was always writing about Equal Protection and just sort of assuming that basically any kind of law is valid under the Commerce Clause. The only two that were not recently were Lopez in 1995 (where the Court said that the Gun-Free School Zone Act was invalid because preventing handguns from entering school grounds did not affect interstate commerce--the school found a gun in a 17-year-old student's locker in Texas) and Morrison in 2000 (where the Court said that the Violence Against Women Act was invalid because preventing gender-based violence does not affect interstate commerce). Wickard is a case from the 1940s that is arguably the most famous Commerce Clause case--a farmer sold off his quota of wheat under a plan enacted as part of the New Deal and then harvested another certain amount of wheat for his family's personal use, rather than buying it at market. He was penalized for doing this, and he wanted the act struck down, but the Court ruled that the behavior he had exhibited would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce if every other farmer also did the same thing. This was called the "aggregation principle." And Wickard and Gonzalez are often talked about in the same breath, because they both concern this aggregation principle, and because one is about wheat, and the other is about, um, weed.
This case is a total showdown between California's Compassionate Use Act and the federal Controlled Substances Act. One of them allows marijuana for medicinal purposes (and it is not exactly difficult, one should understand, to make out a case for why one should be entitled to this prescription) and the other is a total ban on all drugs, including marijuana. This case was decided in 2005 and I moved to L.A. in 2007 and, well, all of the dispensaries were alive and well, so California law must have trumped federal law in this case, right? States are allowed to be laboratories where they can carry out their own experiments to see what makes the most sense for the type of people that live there, right?
Federal authorities arrested a couple California residents who were growing their own marijuana, which is allowed under the Compassionate Use Act, but not allowed by the Controlled Substances Act. Raich and Monson brought this challenge against the Controlled Substances Act. The Court ruled that the act was valid. I guess there was no need to talk about federal pre-emption, and I guess that the Court didn't necessarily need to say the Compassionate Use Act was invalid. What does this case mean practically, then? Like most Commerce Clause cases, most types of congressional legislation are valid. And people still grow their own pot in California. This is one of the greatest cases we read because it illustrates a frustrating aspect about law school studies: you learn the principles behind the decision, but it doesn't necessarily allow for a logical real-world explanation. Also, just the fact that one of the U.S. Constitution's most-famous clauses is now intimately connected to weed is one of the reasons Con Law could be the best first year class, in terms of analyzing provocative hypotheticals, and drawing on one's concept of reasonable American values.
2. Allen v. United States of America, Civ. No. C-79-0515J, C.D. UT, (1984) (Torts)
Another opinion whose opening lines bespeak greatness to come: "In a sense this case began in the mind of a thoughtful resident of Greece named Democritus some twenty-five hundred years ago. In response to a question put two centuries earlier by a compatriot, Thales, concerning the fundamental nature of matter. Democritus suggested the idea of atoms. This case is concerned with atoms, with government, with people, with legal relationships, and with social values.
This case is concerned with what reasonable men in positions of decision-making in the United States government between 1951 and 1963 knew or should have known about the fundamental nature of matter.
It is concerned with the duty, if any, that the United States government had to tell its people, particularly those in proximity to the experiment site, what it knew or should have known about the dangers to them from the government's experiments with nuclear fission conducted above ground in the brushlands of Nevada during those critical years....."
I could quote on and on--it uses the "It is concerned with...." phrase over and over in the introductory section of the opinion, effectively conveying a sense of the stakes to the students reading it. There is this semi-poetic introduction, then there is a section explaining the nature of the action--which is brought by 1,192 named plaintiffs, but is not a class action (and note, after the first year of law school, my concept of a class action is no more clear than it was a year ago). It cites several cases that we had studied (including Parklane Hosiery, from Civil Procedure, which I would rate as the #1 worst case to read if I have the patience to do that list), and then makes the point that, yes, radiation causes leukemia, but it is not always easy to tell if a person has leukemia just because they were exposed to radiation--there are other causes too. It states a general rule of law for this sort of case, and then it moves onto its best part, which is a brief review of the situation of certain representative plaintiffs, the conditions they have exhibited, and the probability of their cancers having been caused by the radiation, and whether or not they should recover. Sometimes, it seems almost arbitrary and unfair that some plaintiffs recover and others do not.
Basically, this was a great case because it was well-written, factually interesting, dramatic (another good subject for a movie), and useful. It cites many cases from Torts that students will study, and it covers a topic that is almost guaranteed to be on a Torts exam (depending on the professor, of course): abnormally-dangerous activity/toxic torts/nuclear radiation. To me, these were some of the most difficult, but also most interesting areas of Torts. I knew it could be tricky, so the night before my Torts exam, I read this case (our copy was a print-out, so perhaps removing it from the cumbersome medium of a 1000 page law book made a psychological difference--see also Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., also a print-out for us). I was able to relax--this case makes sense, for the most part--get a brief review of some other related concepts, and gain a clearer understanding of a tough topic. It worked out well for me. While I didn't exactly ace the exam, I ended up with a B+. This is nothing to write home about, but I had gotten a C on my midterm in Torts--good for the lowest grade in a class of about 40. When that happened, I wanted to drop out straight away, feeling I could never compete with anyone else. That counted for 20% of our grade, so its possible I may have scored an A- on the exam, to end with a B+ in the course. And it's not a great grade, but I considered that one of my top 3 personal achievments in law school. It is hard to find cases as good as Allen to re-read the night before an exam, but I recommend it as a way to manage anxiety.
1) Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., 166 N.E. 173 (N.Y. 1929) (Torts)
This is an opinion written by Justice Cardozo about a ride at Coney Island called "The Flopper." It being by Cardozo, I could quote the entire thing and not know where to stop. A young man went on the Flopper and fell down. Cardozo mentions that there would be no point to the ride if there was no risk of falling--this is why the walls and floors on the ride are padded. The plaintiff was on notice that he could fall down. "The very name above the gate, the Flopper, was warning to the timid. If the name was not enough, there was warning more distinct in the experience of others."
The plaintiff fractured his knee cap. He asserted in his complaint that the ride was dangerous, and not properly equipped to prevent injury. He was thrown with a jerk. Cardozo rules that he cannot prevail in this action, because "Volenti non fit injuria. One who takes part in such a sport accepts the dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary, just as a fencer accepts the risk of a thrust by his antagonist or a spectator at a ball game the chance of contact with the ball."
There are several other quotable portions of this opinion, but I will stop things here, and note that the reason "The Flopper" is the #1 case in the first-year of law school studies is because it is about Assumption of Risk, and anyone choosing to go to law school may be taking a certain risk with their lives. It may seem overly dramatic for me to write this, but it is true: one goes into it with fair warning that it will be graded on a curve, that the reading will be heavy, that only the best grades will get the best jobs, that there are less jobs becase certain schools enroll too many students, that lawyers are parasites of society, that some students won't know how to deal with the stress of it all and will drop out in a manner of economic forfeiture, that some students will chug along pleasantly enough and accrue all of the student loan debt in the world and find the inherent difficulty of squaring life and this profession just too overwhelming, that the social life is a weird hybrid of high school and college and is ultimately more embarassing and less comforting than either because we are supposed to be adults now, right, we are supposed to be responsible individuals that make intelligent choices about our life--enough so that we can advise others on whether their choices are intelligent or not, that the whole mess of it all is a big risk, which one can't say quite as clearly about high school or college, which are overwhelmingly par for the course of education, when law school may seem less expensive than college because it is shorter by a year, but also signals a different period of life that has suddenly become both scary and boring.....In a sense, law school is The Flopper, and if one goes to law school near Coney Island, the metaphor stings that much more. When you complain about law school, people will say, "You wanted to do it." People will say, "You knew what you were getting into." But you didn't, and you can't.
Any ride at any amusement park in the country will now have warning signs that tell you not to ride if you are pregnant, or have a heart condition. The Flopper is thus influential. Law schools do not have warning signs. The warning signs come from outside, impersonal sources (i.e. scamblogs, the subject of the next post) that one has dificulty taking seriously, or believing until it becomes the status quo in one's own personal life.
For the rest of us English majors and creative writing majors, what's done is done, and we have no choice but to keep dreaming, "like boats against the current, born ceaselessly into the past."
Top 10 Worst Cases:
10) Harms v. Sprague (Property) - if it involves mortgages and concurrent ownership, have fun.
9) Semtek Intl Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (Civil Procedure) - who knows what this means.
8) Erie Railroad v. Tompkins; Guaranty Trust Co. v. York; Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative; Hanna v. Plumer (tie) (Civil Procedure) - these cases are important, and painful.
7) Gonzales v. Carhart (Constitutional Law) - for a gruesome description of a partial birth abortion.
6) People v. Anderson (CA Supreme Court, 1968) (Criminal Law) - for a gruesome crime.
5) Rothko v. Reis (Property) - for one page that is ridiculously complex.
4) Allied Steel and Conveyors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (Contracts) - for difficulty of summing up facts. 3) Morrison v. Olson (Constitutional Law) - for appearing 3 times in casebook, and being annoying.
2) Ultramares Corporation v. Touche (Torts) - almost completely incomprehensible.
1) Parklane Hosiery v. Shore (Civil Procedure) - an important case, and painful.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Edwards v. Sims (Kentucky, 1929)
At the beginning of the academic year, it was suggested to me that I should write reviews of cases on this blog in the same way I wrote reviews of books. Now, I did not think I had the time to do this (indeed, writing about every single case would become unbearably time-consuming, and while my next post may be a milestone (#150), had I done this I might be approaching #1000, seriously diluting the quality I have endeavored to achieve on Flying Houses), but I promised myself that I would call attention to this single case from my Property class. I promised myself that when I covered it in my outline, I would transcribe a good portion of its dissent.
Now, our professor in this class did not seem to like this dissent very much. He claimed it "goes on...and on....and on...." True, when it goes on, it does not discuss legal principles. However, there are plenty of opinions that go on, and on, and on, and make one positively drowsy. I have mentioned many times on this blog that "normal people" in 2011 think reading novels is "boring." If you think that is boring, do not go to law school (more on this later).
Whatever the legal utility of the dissent, it was the single-most transcendent reading experience of the year for me. I showed it to my roommate one night, and tried to read it aloud. I could not. I could not stop laughing. He read it aloud instead and agreed that it was fantastic. Perhaps it is unintentionally hilarious, but it is also striking in its beautiful quality.
Some discussion of the facts may be necessary. This is a case about a cave that was discovered underneath a person's land. Edwards discovered the cave, and he improved its conditions, and opened it up as a tourist destination in Kentucky. (This reminded me greatly of "The Lost Sea," an underwater lake in a cave in Sweetwater, TN, which I had planned to visit with a friend, but which unfortunately never came to pass). His neighbor brought an action claiming the ad coelum doctrine, which posits that a person owns everything above or below his land. The cave was beneath his land, and he claimed a right to it. The court held in favor of the neighbor.
The dissenting judge, Logan, found this incredibly unfair (and I agree with him). For the first two pages, Logan mostly keeps to legal principles, while still affecting a somewhat poetic manner. However, by page 3, he completely shifts his focus to a comparison of this cave (The Great Onyx Cave) to Hades, extolling the virtues of the brave workers who excavated it. The best possible explanation I can make is that he smoked a lot of weed and then wrote the part that begins here:
"...Edwards owns this cave through right of discovery, exploration, development, advertising, exhibition, and conquest. Men fought their way through the eternal darkness, into the mysterious and abysmal depths of the bowels of a groaning world to discover the theretofore unseen splendors of unknown natural scenic wonders. They were conquerors of fear, although now and then one of them, as did Floyd Collins, paid with his life, for his hardihood in adventuring into the regions where Charon with his boat had never before seen any but the spirits of the departed. They let themselves down by flimsy ropes into pits that seemed bottomless; they clung to scanty handholds as they skirted the brinks of precipices while the flickering flare of their flaming flambeaux disclosed no bottom to the yawning gulf beneath them; they waded through rushing torrents, not knowing what awaited them on the farther side; they climbed slippery steeps to find other levels; they wounded their bodies on stalagmites and stalactites and other curious and weird formations; they found chambers, star-studded and filled with scintillating light reflected by a phantasmagoria revealing fancied phantoms, and tapestry woven by the toiling gods in the dominion of Erebus; hunger and thirst, danger and deprivation could not stop them. Through days, weeks, months, and years--ever linking chamber with chamber, disclosing an underground land of enchantment, they continued their explorations; through the years they toiled connecting these wonders with the outside world through the entrance on the land of Edwards which he had discovered; through the years they toiled finding safe ways for those who might come to view what they had found and placed their seal upon. They knew nothing, and cared less, of who owned the surface above; they were in another world where no law forbade their footsteps. They created an underground kingdom where Gulliver's people may have lived or where Ayesha may have found the revolving column of fire in which to bathe meant eternal youth."
"When the wonders were unfolded and the ways were made safe, then Edwards patiently, and again through the years, commenced the advertisement of his cave. First came one to see, then another, then two together, then small groups, then small crowds, then large crowds, and then the multitudes. Edwards had seen his faith justified. The cave was his because he had made it what it was, and without what he had done it was nothing of value. The value is not in the black vacuum that the uninitiated call a cave. That which Edwards owns is something intangible and indefinable. It is his vision translated into a reality."
"Then came the horse leach's daughters crying: 'Give me,' 'give me.' Then came the 'surface men' crying, 'I think this cave may run under my lands.' They do not know they only 'guess,' but they seek to discover the secrets of Edwards so that they may harass him and take from him that which he had made his own. They have come to a court of equity and have asked that Edwards be forced to open his doors and his ways to them so that they may go in and despoil him; that they may lay his secrets bare so that others may follow their example and dig into the wonders which Edwards has made his own. What may be the result if they stop his ways? They destroy the cave, because those who visit it are they who give it value, and none will visit it when the ways are barred so that it may not be exhibited as a whole."
"It may be that the law is stated in the majority opinion of the court, but equity, according to my judgment, should not destroy that which belongs to one man when he at whose behest the destruction is visited, although with some legal right, is not benefited thereby. Any ruling by a court which brings great and irreparable injury to a party is erroneous."
All judges should write like this. True, applications of legal rules to facts of whatever the present case may be are not always conflated by such poetic subject matter, but they really should make more of an effort. There should be a certain pleasure in reading judicial opinions. Sometimes, they are pleasurable. Many law professors speak of Cardozo as the be-all, end-all of linguistic masters. Holmes is similarly held up on a pedestal. As much as I may disagree with much of what he has to say, one cannot deny that Scalia sometimes strings together an entertaining phrase or two. One of the first dissents I read, by Justice Black in Goldberg v. Kelly, I found similarly great. I should state that I am a huge fan of Posner, and that if I were a much better student, had a background in economics or engineering, and had gone to say, Northwestern or U Chicago, it would be my "dream job" to be his clerk or intern. Kozinski has also written more than his fair share of very humorous opinions.
Yet these moments of literary epiphany in law are rare. 95% of the opinions I read are boring, tiresome, and as dry as a math textbook, despite the usually incredible circumstances they are called upon to adjudicate. I would love to be on a journal next year, and write a "note" on this topic, but unfortunately I doubt it would be supported by the staff. You are supposed to write about novel legal issues that have not been addressed by anyone before. I would love to write a biographical note on Logan, to see what his other opinions looked like, and to gauge his legal philosophy, or to write about the phenomena of poetic or humorous judicial opinions in general, but I am afraid this would not be allowed. Note that this is one of the reasons I hate law school. There, I said it.
What legal issue is important to me, that is novel, that no one has addressed? Something in intellectual property law perhaps, copyright, whether posting large sections of text from novels is legal (I hope so). But this is not something I care particularly deeply about. My 4 "followers" (and I cherish each and every one of them) may know that the only thing I care particularly deeply about is literature, and creating my own, in a search for perfection or transcendence. It is a shame that there is so little money associated with such a venture. It is what led me to think a position within the legal profession was the next best thing. It is not. I do not think it will (would?) be the worst job in the world, but what you have to go through in order to get it is certainly one of the worst things in the world. Oh, I know it must be very hard to get a PHD or an MBA or CPA certification, and probably MD too. However, I think psychologically, there is nothing more difficult or painful, particularly going through it from 2010-2013 at a "2nd tier" school in New York City.
It is time to draw this post to a close. The next post I write will be after May 13th. It will be a reflection upon the entire year. The post to follow that will be a commentary on the phenomena of "scamblogs." That post will be dedicated to every one who is considering going to law school, or who has already sent in their seat deposit for the class of 2014. I now must return to my outlining. Good night, and good luck.
Now, our professor in this class did not seem to like this dissent very much. He claimed it "goes on...and on....and on...." True, when it goes on, it does not discuss legal principles. However, there are plenty of opinions that go on, and on, and on, and make one positively drowsy. I have mentioned many times on this blog that "normal people" in 2011 think reading novels is "boring." If you think that is boring, do not go to law school (more on this later).
Whatever the legal utility of the dissent, it was the single-most transcendent reading experience of the year for me. I showed it to my roommate one night, and tried to read it aloud. I could not. I could not stop laughing. He read it aloud instead and agreed that it was fantastic. Perhaps it is unintentionally hilarious, but it is also striking in its beautiful quality.
Some discussion of the facts may be necessary. This is a case about a cave that was discovered underneath a person's land. Edwards discovered the cave, and he improved its conditions, and opened it up as a tourist destination in Kentucky. (This reminded me greatly of "The Lost Sea," an underwater lake in a cave in Sweetwater, TN, which I had planned to visit with a friend, but which unfortunately never came to pass). His neighbor brought an action claiming the ad coelum doctrine, which posits that a person owns everything above or below his land. The cave was beneath his land, and he claimed a right to it. The court held in favor of the neighbor.
The dissenting judge, Logan, found this incredibly unfair (and I agree with him). For the first two pages, Logan mostly keeps to legal principles, while still affecting a somewhat poetic manner. However, by page 3, he completely shifts his focus to a comparison of this cave (The Great Onyx Cave) to Hades, extolling the virtues of the brave workers who excavated it. The best possible explanation I can make is that he smoked a lot of weed and then wrote the part that begins here:
"...Edwards owns this cave through right of discovery, exploration, development, advertising, exhibition, and conquest. Men fought their way through the eternal darkness, into the mysterious and abysmal depths of the bowels of a groaning world to discover the theretofore unseen splendors of unknown natural scenic wonders. They were conquerors of fear, although now and then one of them, as did Floyd Collins, paid with his life, for his hardihood in adventuring into the regions where Charon with his boat had never before seen any but the spirits of the departed. They let themselves down by flimsy ropes into pits that seemed bottomless; they clung to scanty handholds as they skirted the brinks of precipices while the flickering flare of their flaming flambeaux disclosed no bottom to the yawning gulf beneath them; they waded through rushing torrents, not knowing what awaited them on the farther side; they climbed slippery steeps to find other levels; they wounded their bodies on stalagmites and stalactites and other curious and weird formations; they found chambers, star-studded and filled with scintillating light reflected by a phantasmagoria revealing fancied phantoms, and tapestry woven by the toiling gods in the dominion of Erebus; hunger and thirst, danger and deprivation could not stop them. Through days, weeks, months, and years--ever linking chamber with chamber, disclosing an underground land of enchantment, they continued their explorations; through the years they toiled connecting these wonders with the outside world through the entrance on the land of Edwards which he had discovered; through the years they toiled finding safe ways for those who might come to view what they had found and placed their seal upon. They knew nothing, and cared less, of who owned the surface above; they were in another world where no law forbade their footsteps. They created an underground kingdom where Gulliver's people may have lived or where Ayesha may have found the revolving column of fire in which to bathe meant eternal youth."
"When the wonders were unfolded and the ways were made safe, then Edwards patiently, and again through the years, commenced the advertisement of his cave. First came one to see, then another, then two together, then small groups, then small crowds, then large crowds, and then the multitudes. Edwards had seen his faith justified. The cave was his because he had made it what it was, and without what he had done it was nothing of value. The value is not in the black vacuum that the uninitiated call a cave. That which Edwards owns is something intangible and indefinable. It is his vision translated into a reality."
"Then came the horse leach's daughters crying: 'Give me,' 'give me.' Then came the 'surface men' crying, 'I think this cave may run under my lands.' They do not know they only 'guess,' but they seek to discover the secrets of Edwards so that they may harass him and take from him that which he had made his own. They have come to a court of equity and have asked that Edwards be forced to open his doors and his ways to them so that they may go in and despoil him; that they may lay his secrets bare so that others may follow their example and dig into the wonders which Edwards has made his own. What may be the result if they stop his ways? They destroy the cave, because those who visit it are they who give it value, and none will visit it when the ways are barred so that it may not be exhibited as a whole."
"It may be that the law is stated in the majority opinion of the court, but equity, according to my judgment, should not destroy that which belongs to one man when he at whose behest the destruction is visited, although with some legal right, is not benefited thereby. Any ruling by a court which brings great and irreparable injury to a party is erroneous."
All judges should write like this. True, applications of legal rules to facts of whatever the present case may be are not always conflated by such poetic subject matter, but they really should make more of an effort. There should be a certain pleasure in reading judicial opinions. Sometimes, they are pleasurable. Many law professors speak of Cardozo as the be-all, end-all of linguistic masters. Holmes is similarly held up on a pedestal. As much as I may disagree with much of what he has to say, one cannot deny that Scalia sometimes strings together an entertaining phrase or two. One of the first dissents I read, by Justice Black in Goldberg v. Kelly, I found similarly great. I should state that I am a huge fan of Posner, and that if I were a much better student, had a background in economics or engineering, and had gone to say, Northwestern or U Chicago, it would be my "dream job" to be his clerk or intern. Kozinski has also written more than his fair share of very humorous opinions.
Yet these moments of literary epiphany in law are rare. 95% of the opinions I read are boring, tiresome, and as dry as a math textbook, despite the usually incredible circumstances they are called upon to adjudicate. I would love to be on a journal next year, and write a "note" on this topic, but unfortunately I doubt it would be supported by the staff. You are supposed to write about novel legal issues that have not been addressed by anyone before. I would love to write a biographical note on Logan, to see what his other opinions looked like, and to gauge his legal philosophy, or to write about the phenomena of poetic or humorous judicial opinions in general, but I am afraid this would not be allowed. Note that this is one of the reasons I hate law school. There, I said it.
What legal issue is important to me, that is novel, that no one has addressed? Something in intellectual property law perhaps, copyright, whether posting large sections of text from novels is legal (I hope so). But this is not something I care particularly deeply about. My 4 "followers" (and I cherish each and every one of them) may know that the only thing I care particularly deeply about is literature, and creating my own, in a search for perfection or transcendence. It is a shame that there is so little money associated with such a venture. It is what led me to think a position within the legal profession was the next best thing. It is not. I do not think it will (would?) be the worst job in the world, but what you have to go through in order to get it is certainly one of the worst things in the world. Oh, I know it must be very hard to get a PHD or an MBA or CPA certification, and probably MD too. However, I think psychologically, there is nothing more difficult or painful, particularly going through it from 2010-2013 at a "2nd tier" school in New York City.
It is time to draw this post to a close. The next post I write will be after May 13th. It will be a reflection upon the entire year. The post to follow that will be a commentary on the phenomena of "scamblogs." That post will be dedicated to every one who is considering going to law school, or who has already sent in their seat deposit for the class of 2014. I now must return to my outlining. Good night, and good luck.
Friday, March 4, 2011
A Lawyer Walks Into a Bar...- Dir. Eric Chaikin
About a month ago, I was up around midnight on a Saturday night, searching randomly around documentaries on Netflix. I came across this movie and found it worth writing about on Flying Houses for several reasons. First of all, there are many films and television shows about the legal profession, but they never address the boredom and mundanity of it all. They make it seem exciting. In a review on Flying Houses from about a year and a half ago (here http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2009/11/lawyer-myth-rennard-strickland-frank-t.html), there contained a quote from Roger Ebert to the effect that nothing could be more boring than an absolutely accurate movie about the law. I am sure that, were I to read The Lawyer Myth again, I would not review it so easily. Or perhaps it would be more illuminating, a quicker read, and less boring at points. Any books published for the general public will be less tedious than the mechanical methodology of a judicial opinion. There are plenty of books about the legal profession, but few films, and owing to people's inability to find time to read, or general laziness, it seems that more should be made in the near future.
There are plenty of feature films, but as already mentioned, they do not expose the mundanity. This film exposes the mundanity, but in a way that still makes law school seem like fun. Or rather, there is little discussion of the actual 3 years. The focus is upon the two and a half months in between graduation--second half of May, June, and July--and the hell that newly-minted J.D.'s must undergo in California. They face a Bar Exam with a 39% pass rate, the lowest in the country. At least, that is the percentage the film cites. The figures I find are 44% or 46% from 2004 or 2005. In 2009, it was 49% (and in 2008 it was an impressive 54%)--also these are "overall" numbers--the first-time numbers are generally a bit higher.
This film follows six different aspiring Bar-passers. I say that because one of them is a social worker by trade who has taken the Bar exam about forty times. Many organizations utilize both social workers and attorneys, so maybe actually he would just change his position where he was working. He has consistently failed the Bar and it inspired him to write an article called "Fuck the Bar," and at one point in the film he shouts it at the building where they are all taking it in Ontario, CA.
The five others graduate from various schools. There is a girl who is part-Native American and who says she was a 50% actress/50% law student while attending UCLA law school, the most prestigious school represented. She has a scholarship or a grant from the Tribe she is affiliated with. In one scene, she should be studying for the Bar, but instead she is out partying, and I am surprised the footage of that remained in the film, though it does make for its most hilarious moment. It seems almost staged.
I think THREE of the six actually went to Loyola Law School, which is why I found this so worth writing about, as I nearly attended that school in a dead-lock (decided about a year ago) with its arguable "sister-school," where I now reside. One of them is a guy who graduated the year before, and he is taking the Bar his second time. The two others are girls who have just graduated that year. I realize now that it is hard to write this review without getting deeply into their personal stories.
The last person went to People's College of Law in L.A. and some of the scenes with the director of the school are some of the best in the movie too. I've forgotten the quotes she has but practically all are classic. The student in question is a Mexican immigrant mother who is in her late 30s or early 40s. Some of the scenes with her are very moving, and her story of going through community college in East L.A. and making her way through law school to become a potential attorney may inspire those in situations where the odds seem improbably stacked against them.
I do not want to give away the ending but let us just say that it is not very surprising.
I do not have much to say about this film except that I am glad it exists. However, it was released in 2007, and shot in the summer of 2006, so there is very little in the film to suggest that the economy is bad, particularly for lawyers. Now there needs to be a new movie. Nothing about law school translates as well in documentary form as the Bar, because it is the actual end of all the b-s. It would not be feasible to make a movie about all 3 years of law school. I do think a good movie could be made about the first year. There are many crucial moments that would translate well. The orientation, the first month of classes, the legal writing assignments piled up on top of the other work, the different briefing methods, note-taking methods, the midterms, if any, and finally the exams---followed by the grades, which are "all that matter," the next semester classes, the internship search, and finally the last exams, which will determine class rank for OCI, hiring for summer associates, and potential hiring for graduates. Of course the end of the first year is far from the end, and so no real closure could be given. Law school is not properly applicable to a documentary context, but should be portrayed in a feature film, with much drama and much mundanity. This would help that percentage of law students that enter with nebulous ideas of what it is going to be like, and where it is going to lead.
1L (also previously reviewed here) and the The Paper Chase may be instructive, but they portray Harvard Law School in the 1970s. While the actual material students must read in the first year may not have changed appreciably, the general atmosphere pervading the profession has, as has society at large. I want to see a movie that shows 1/3 of the students at an "average" school going on Facebook or playing Scrabble on their computers while in class. I want it to focus on like, maybe 6 students, one who is perfect and gets straight A's, blah, blah, blah, another who is far from perfect and gets bad grades and looks like an idiot when they have to talk in class, who worries about ever getting a job and wants to drop out, and the other four in varying degrees in the middle, maybe one person who commits "sectioncest" and has a romantic comedy storyline, maybe one who is super-depressed and breaks out crying in the middle of class or kills themselves, maybe a totally average student who gets through everything alright and ends up with a job, and is generally happy, and then maybe another totally average student who maybe ends up with a job, but maybe has serious financial difficulties, and always wonders if they made the right decision, if there wasn't something else they'd rather be doing.
A feature film like this would lay out all the issues, and actually be useful to those considering applying. A potential student will probably not find A Lawyer Walks Into a Bar.... and decide they don't want to go. No matter how bad people make the Bar seem, I think students will always think, "Well, I did the LSAT and nothing can be more stressful than that..." However, it seems clear to me now, that the Bar is more stressful than anything, after watching this film. If you fail, what do you do? You take it again. Or else you keep your J.D. on your resume, and maybe some HR people think you may have other skills, but have questions that you can either answer or not, at the risk of looking like a liability. Really, at the end of the day, nothing is more stressful than getting the job, and actually living under the terms of the profession. Once that is achieved, there should be happiness, because all of the hoops and hurdles have been jumped through and over. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, happiness does not generally follow. Rather, lawyers tend to look back fondly on their law school years. It seems as if many are guarded individuals who would rather not open up about their personal feelings on the subject, but will be happy to tell people not to go if they aren't absolutely sure they want to go.
The financial aspect of taking BarBri and the Bar, after the enormous financial burdens of law school is vaguely addressed in this film, but I still think my feature film idea would get this across better. Now, movies extolling Christian ideology by Christian filmmakers always find financing despite not expecting to reach a critical mass, but who will finance my movie? The ABA? The NYC Bar Association? A profession is hardly a religion. But in a profession so deeply concerned with regulation, one would think there would be a way to regulate law schools in a manner that a disproportionate number of students do not graduate with little hope of employment. Unfortunately, such a massive overhaul is unlikely to be seriously considered.
P.S. If anyone actually takes my idea without coming to me for use as a creative consultant, it will make me very sad.
There are plenty of feature films, but as already mentioned, they do not expose the mundanity. This film exposes the mundanity, but in a way that still makes law school seem like fun. Or rather, there is little discussion of the actual 3 years. The focus is upon the two and a half months in between graduation--second half of May, June, and July--and the hell that newly-minted J.D.'s must undergo in California. They face a Bar Exam with a 39% pass rate, the lowest in the country. At least, that is the percentage the film cites. The figures I find are 44% or 46% from 2004 or 2005. In 2009, it was 49% (and in 2008 it was an impressive 54%)--also these are "overall" numbers--the first-time numbers are generally a bit higher.
This film follows six different aspiring Bar-passers. I say that because one of them is a social worker by trade who has taken the Bar exam about forty times. Many organizations utilize both social workers and attorneys, so maybe actually he would just change his position where he was working. He has consistently failed the Bar and it inspired him to write an article called "Fuck the Bar," and at one point in the film he shouts it at the building where they are all taking it in Ontario, CA.
The five others graduate from various schools. There is a girl who is part-Native American and who says she was a 50% actress/50% law student while attending UCLA law school, the most prestigious school represented. She has a scholarship or a grant from the Tribe she is affiliated with. In one scene, she should be studying for the Bar, but instead she is out partying, and I am surprised the footage of that remained in the film, though it does make for its most hilarious moment. It seems almost staged.
I think THREE of the six actually went to Loyola Law School, which is why I found this so worth writing about, as I nearly attended that school in a dead-lock (decided about a year ago) with its arguable "sister-school," where I now reside. One of them is a guy who graduated the year before, and he is taking the Bar his second time. The two others are girls who have just graduated that year. I realize now that it is hard to write this review without getting deeply into their personal stories.
The last person went to People's College of Law in L.A. and some of the scenes with the director of the school are some of the best in the movie too. I've forgotten the quotes she has but practically all are classic. The student in question is a Mexican immigrant mother who is in her late 30s or early 40s. Some of the scenes with her are very moving, and her story of going through community college in East L.A. and making her way through law school to become a potential attorney may inspire those in situations where the odds seem improbably stacked against them.
I do not want to give away the ending but let us just say that it is not very surprising.
I do not have much to say about this film except that I am glad it exists. However, it was released in 2007, and shot in the summer of 2006, so there is very little in the film to suggest that the economy is bad, particularly for lawyers. Now there needs to be a new movie. Nothing about law school translates as well in documentary form as the Bar, because it is the actual end of all the b-s. It would not be feasible to make a movie about all 3 years of law school. I do think a good movie could be made about the first year. There are many crucial moments that would translate well. The orientation, the first month of classes, the legal writing assignments piled up on top of the other work, the different briefing methods, note-taking methods, the midterms, if any, and finally the exams---followed by the grades, which are "all that matter," the next semester classes, the internship search, and finally the last exams, which will determine class rank for OCI, hiring for summer associates, and potential hiring for graduates. Of course the end of the first year is far from the end, and so no real closure could be given. Law school is not properly applicable to a documentary context, but should be portrayed in a feature film, with much drama and much mundanity. This would help that percentage of law students that enter with nebulous ideas of what it is going to be like, and where it is going to lead.
1L (also previously reviewed here) and the The Paper Chase may be instructive, but they portray Harvard Law School in the 1970s. While the actual material students must read in the first year may not have changed appreciably, the general atmosphere pervading the profession has, as has society at large. I want to see a movie that shows 1/3 of the students at an "average" school going on Facebook or playing Scrabble on their computers while in class. I want it to focus on like, maybe 6 students, one who is perfect and gets straight A's, blah, blah, blah, another who is far from perfect and gets bad grades and looks like an idiot when they have to talk in class, who worries about ever getting a job and wants to drop out, and the other four in varying degrees in the middle, maybe one person who commits "sectioncest" and has a romantic comedy storyline, maybe one who is super-depressed and breaks out crying in the middle of class or kills themselves, maybe a totally average student who gets through everything alright and ends up with a job, and is generally happy, and then maybe another totally average student who maybe ends up with a job, but maybe has serious financial difficulties, and always wonders if they made the right decision, if there wasn't something else they'd rather be doing.
A feature film like this would lay out all the issues, and actually be useful to those considering applying. A potential student will probably not find A Lawyer Walks Into a Bar.... and decide they don't want to go. No matter how bad people make the Bar seem, I think students will always think, "Well, I did the LSAT and nothing can be more stressful than that..." However, it seems clear to me now, that the Bar is more stressful than anything, after watching this film. If you fail, what do you do? You take it again. Or else you keep your J.D. on your resume, and maybe some HR people think you may have other skills, but have questions that you can either answer or not, at the risk of looking like a liability. Really, at the end of the day, nothing is more stressful than getting the job, and actually living under the terms of the profession. Once that is achieved, there should be happiness, because all of the hoops and hurdles have been jumped through and over. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, happiness does not generally follow. Rather, lawyers tend to look back fondly on their law school years. It seems as if many are guarded individuals who would rather not open up about their personal feelings on the subject, but will be happy to tell people not to go if they aren't absolutely sure they want to go.
The financial aspect of taking BarBri and the Bar, after the enormous financial burdens of law school is vaguely addressed in this film, but I still think my feature film idea would get this across better. Now, movies extolling Christian ideology by Christian filmmakers always find financing despite not expecting to reach a critical mass, but who will finance my movie? The ABA? The NYC Bar Association? A profession is hardly a religion. But in a profession so deeply concerned with regulation, one would think there would be a way to regulate law schools in a manner that a disproportionate number of students do not graduate with little hope of employment. Unfortunately, such a massive overhaul is unlikely to be seriously considered.
P.S. If anyone actually takes my idea without coming to me for use as a creative consultant, it will make me very sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)