pageok
pageok
pageok
Why You Shouldn't Go to Law School:
Paul Gowder makes the case here. I think Paul gives short thrift to practicing criminal law, though. You won't make a ton of money as a prosecutor or defense attorney, but it avoids a lot of the problems he mentions.

  UPDATE: I should add, in response to some of the thoughtful comments, that I gather Paul is deliberately stacking the deck to provide a counterpoint to some misunderstandings about practicing law held by a number of law school applicants. Some applicants imagine that a law degree will open the door to practicing international human rights law before the Supreme Court at a prestigious firm that pays them a $1 million a year salary plus free car service at 5pm when the workday is over. The reality is different, and I gather Paul wants those students to know it. The real lesson comes at the end of the original post: "Make this decision very carefully. Don't just drift into it because you're not sure what else to do with a humanities degree."

  ANOTHER UPDATE: Michael Froomkin comments here.
dearieme:
So becoming a professor is just a way of taking shelter from thecruel world that he describes?
11.21.2007 2:46am
Crackmonkeyjr (www):
These posts come up every so often and I think they are overplayed. Every job has its downside and I don't think being a lawyer is quite as great a career as it is made out to be (having just realized that, with my massive student loans, I'm saving about $70 a week assuming I don't have any large expenses that week, but even that isn't too bad for someone in their 20s, living on their own), but at I actually like practicing law. I don't even do anything flashy, mostly contract litigation (and I haven't even seen the inside of a courtroom yet), but I find it very interesting and the people at my firm are pretty pleasant.

Granted I've only been out of law school a bit over a year, but I'd suspect that some of the shine to be coming off of the apple if it were going to come off.

I don't think that the problem is that the practice of law sucks, but that people go into the law for the wrong reason. If you pick your career just for the money, of course you are going to hate it. I saw the same thing with computer programmers (who didn't even get that when all the jobs moved over seas). The correct reason to go into a field, law or otherwise, is because it is something you are interested in. The only real problem with the practice of law is that it has a disproportionate number of people who go into it just for the money.
11.21.2007 2:53am
justwonderingby:
the linked post is correct: sure, lots of people hate their jobs, but there are a significant percentage of lawyers who QUIT the practice of law because they hate it so much. I can think of at least 20 people from my class who've do that and many more who'd like to.
11.21.2007 4:58am
Anonymouseducator (mail) (www):
A lot people quit teaching, too.

At least lawyers can afford cocaine.
11.21.2007 6:22am
The River Temoc (mail):
The only real problem with the practice of law is that it has a disproportionate number of people who go into it just for the money.

I disagree with this statement pretty strongly. Now, granted, the fact that lawyers (BIGLAW lawyers, anyway) get paid less than their business side clients is frustrating -- but I think the problem is far more than that.

The real problem is that lawyers, by definition, aren't leaders. As a lawyer, you'll never be the doer; you'll always be the helper. Or, to put it more bluntly, the lawyer's role is to document the decisions that other people take. If you're interested in strategy, or organizational behavior, or in seeing the effect decisions have, you're out of luck as a lawyer.

This socialization process begins on the first day of law school. What's the essence of a sound legal argument? Why, one that comports with precedent, of course. That's following, not leading.

A lot of people attend law school thinking precisely the opposite -- that law school will equip them to analyze big-picture issues. And truth be told, law school, handled correctly, is intellectually stimulating and can focus on big-picture issues. (The weekly law and economics seminars were my cup of tea; for others it may have been being articles editors on journals, or being research assistants or what not.)

But the nature of legal work is such that these benefits evaporate in actual legal practice. The people who need lawyers turn to them because they want predictability ("is this contract enforceable?"), not innovation ("why are we contracting to enter this market in the first place?").

The practice of law is less like being articles editor of the law review, where what counts is intellectual firepower, and more like one endless bluebooking session, where what counts is whether you've italicized a period on page 14. (For the record, arguably the most valuable thing I learned in law school came when I attended an event at the business school and some venture capitalist, lecturing on how to write a business plan, remarked that "no one cares if you've missed a comma on page 14.")

Many people who contemplate law school wrongly assume that their post-law jobs will reflect the skill set of the articles editor, whereas in fact they reflect the skill set of the bluebooker.

Now, I suppose you could argue, rightly, that any job has its moments of bluebookish drudgery. But "go scout out some promising companies with sound business plans" differs fundamentally from "go draft some documents memorializing our investment in that company." The former one-line job description is just inherently more intellectually stimulating than the latter.

My argument is that, notwithstanding the fact that aspects of law school can be intellectually challenging, you're better off with degree, such as a public policy or business degree, that puts you on the path towards being the doer, not the helper.
11.21.2007 7:23am
Cameron (mail):
Isn't the phrase "short shrift?"
11.21.2007 7:48am
Temp Guest (mail):
It's rather disappointing, in a blog written by libertarians, to find such short shrift (actually non-existent shrift) given to self-employed lawyers or lawyers working in small firms. These lawyers are beholden to no one. They are the lawyers who work with ordinary people, resolving ordinary conflicts. Most of their work involves helping people and it is often highly rewarding emotionally and moderately rewarding financially. It is often "bread-and-butter" law, but can also often involve creative solutions to difficul;t problems. Only failures result in stressful litigation. Self-employment also allows time for family and self. Some of the happiest and most fulfilled people I have known have been self-employed lawyers running their own law practices.
11.21.2007 8:42am
A.C.:
Lawyers with specialties that interest them also tend to do well. Patent lawyers and environmentally lawyers seem to have a better time than people who do general business law with no special subject-matter interest.

At the end of the day, other people's business deals can be very boring.
11.21.2007 8:51am
Stephen M (Ethesis) (mail) (www):
I really enjoy the practice of law, just as a counterpoint.
11.21.2007 8:52am
c.f.w. (mail):
The first year lawyer who enjoys contract litigation is looking to get taken out. If the work is not hard and over abundant (and he/she is not looking at how to get it done more quickly and cheaply), some one else will be seeing how it can be consolidated, moved in-house to contract administrators/paralegals, automated (call in the court appearances), moved to lower priced lawyers (contract attorneys, lawyers in West VA, etc.).

Over the last 20 years growth in law business has been sub-normal - say 1.2%. The next 20 years are also going to see limits on head count (what it takes 1 BigLaw lawyer to do now will be doable in 5-10 years by half a BigLaw lawyer). Moore's Law is causing a growing impact on law practice.

Advice - think automation, computerization, AI, always. Maybe get that Apple, to emphasize technology in the practice. Think as an entrepreneur, not like a priest with special entitlement. Do not assume that the BigLaw pack is growing - I suspect it is shrinking, in total headcount, and will continue to shrink. In a year or two, the ripple effect of credit freeze up may reduce BigLaw headcount 20% or so. And I suspect those jobs will be gone for good, replaced by automation, spreading of work to UK, to in house folks, etc.

That said, I like practice of law, and always have, in the government, in BigLaw and on my own. But one cannot fall in love with one's assets, including degrees/jobs, eh?
11.21.2007 9:20am
Cornellian (mail):
There's a lot of truth in the article, though it's somewhat exaggerated. It should be read by prospective law students as a counterweight to the overly optimistic views one can find elsewhere.

Criminal law avoid some of the problems described in the article, but has its own set of problems - mainly having to deal day after day with vile, disgusting, violent people. Admittedly a lot of your practice will probably involve low level criminals who haven't done anything really awful but how many murderers, rapists and child molesters do you really want to know?
11.21.2007 9:27am
Hoosier:

A lot people quit teaching, too.

At least lawyers can afford cocaine.


HA! Well THIS teacher sure can't! My drug budget is limited LiquidPaper. And now it smells yucky.
11.21.2007 9:37am
Anderson (mail):
The article seems to assume that everyone practices law in NYC or LA or somesuch.

I'm at a 60-lawyer firm in a small Southern state, required to bill only 1850 hours a year, with bonuses tied to fees collected. My salary's less than it would be if I were in Atlanta, but it's certainly a fair return for my work. I'm lucky enough to work for a congenial shareholder, doing small litigation that keeps me busy.

I find it hard to believe that my situation's all that unusual. People who've convinced themselves that the only way to succeed as a lawyer is to make $500K a year at a white-shoe firm ... well, not many of them are going to be happy.
11.21.2007 9:42am
Zathras (mail):
The picture is hardly always rosy for solos either. Here is a great post on the Greedy Associates boards from such a person and why the working the law was not worth it to him.
11.21.2007 9:50am
Stuart Buck (mail) (www):
FYI, Paul is a really bright guy. He was in my HLS class of 2000, and was the youngest person there (he started law school at age 18, if I recall).
11.21.2007 9:54am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Lawyers with specialties that interest them also tend to do well. Patent lawyers and environmentally lawyers seem to have a better time than people who do general business law with no special subject-matter interest.
I definately agree with this. Most of the patent attorneys I have known over the years have enjoyed their jobs, and in particular, those who had engineering jobs first. I have often said that the great thing about the job is that when you are bored being a lawyer, you can be an engineer, and when you get bored with that, you can go back to being a lawyer.
11.21.2007 10:11am
Spartacus (www):
I don't fit into any of those three categories, and neither do many of the lawyers I know, or the graduates from my class. I work at a small (5 attorney) firm, do mostly litigation, some advisory and contract work, am not required to bill more than 1500 hours, and anything on top of that contributes to my bonus. I've only been here two months, but I'm going to be in court (and am preparing to cross-examine witnesses) next month. Yes, discovery and settlement negotations with insurance firms can get boring, but so can a lot of jobs, and I've dealt with far worse. At least law is occassionally intellectually stimulating. And the pay's not too bad--while I'm only slowly paying of my debt, at least I'm not incurring any more, and if I didn't have a family of 4 to fund, I'd actually be saving. In short, check back with me in 5 years to see how I feel, but for now, I'm enjoying it, and pretty optomistic.
11.21.2007 10:18am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
The only real problem with the practice of law is that it has a disproportionate number of people who go into it just for the money.
My how things have changed. When I was an undergraduate during Nixon's first term, the "money" profession was medicine. Indeed, we had a strong honor code, and overall had almost no cheating - except for pre-meds. In my four years as an undergraduate, the only cheating that I was ever aware of was several cases in the biology and chemistry departments (which is where the pre-meds were). It seemed like those who got into medical school at the time were reasonably smart, definately hard workers, but many seemed to excel at doing what it took to get into medical school (including one woman I know who slept with all the male members of her recomendation committee).

Maybe the problem is that a lot of the overachieving grinders willing to do what it takes to get ahead moved somewhat away from medicince and towards law in anticipation of those Big Firm salaries.
11.21.2007 10:19am
quasimodo (mail):

Isn't the phrase "short shrift?"


Yes
11.21.2007 10:36am
Sarah (mail) (www):
These conversations always depress me. I wish I was born in 1845 and had all my choices made for me -- at least then I would have been spared hearing, for all of my life, about how a proper choice was never really possible anyway.

Is there anything excessively optimistic about a plan to go to Cooley Law (I have a high LSAT! It's free!), graduate with a decent GPA, work at someplace like the Lexis-Nexis call center, and use the funds from that work to get a PhD in something I like? Besides how surprisingly hard it is to get a good GPA at Cooley, I mean? Because the US Dept of Education would really like those loans I got for undergrad to be paid back, and it turns out that political science majors are mostly in need as administrative assistants.
11.21.2007 10:43am
Dave N (mail):
I have spent my career as a public lawyer, starting as a small county prosecutor and now working for my state attorney general.

At NONE of my jobs have I had to bill hours. In each of them I was in court on a regular basis doing interesting, important work, starting the first week on the job. In the course of my career I have been lead counsel in almost every conceivable kind of prosecution, including murder. I have also had the honor and privilege of arguing capital cases before both the state supreme court and the Circuit Court of Appeals as well as writing and reviewing Supreme Court amicus briefs.

Will I get rich? No. Do I make a very comfortable middle class income and live in a nice part of town? Yes. Do I have job satisfaction? Yes. Do I regret going to law school? Not in the least. Do I have much sympathy for those who went into the law simply to get rich? Hell no.
11.21.2007 10:46am
Public_Defender (mail):

The lawyers-as-jerks stereotype is one that has more than a grain of truth to it, in my experience.


As Professor Kerr pointed out, practicing criminal law avoids a lot of the problems mentioned in the blog.

Ask any judge. He or she will tell you that prosecutors and defense attorneys get along far better than "civil" lawyers. That's mainly because we have to deal with each other much more regularly, and a reputation for being a jerk will make it much harder to be successful.
11.21.2007 10:48am
Habeas Clerk:
I tend to agree with Gowder and Froomkin. But why is this news to anyone? I think many potential law students already hear this kind of advice, but they ingore it, thinking that their experience will be different.

I also echo those who say that practicing can be rewarding if you are working in an area of the law that you enjoy.
11.21.2007 10:52am
Habeas Clerk:
Er, that's "ignore it."
11.21.2007 10:53am
CEB:
I have to agree with Temp Guest et. al. here. There is a rather annoying perception out there that Biglaw is the only law. I will graduate from a fourth tier law school next month and will begin working at a small-town law firm of about ten lawyers. I look forward to the prospect of doing everyday legal work for individuals: wills, divorces, car accident claims, etc. True, my starting salary will be one-third to one-fourth of that of biglaw associates, but I will be working 40-50 hours a week in a pleasant environment. Plus, my wife and I are looking for houses, and then town we are moving to has beautiful houses for less than 100k.
11.21.2007 10:53am
Dave N (mail):
By the way, I agree with what Public Defender just said. Some of my best friends have been public defenders. The successful criminal practioner learns early on that being a zealous advocate and being a jerk are two different things.
11.21.2007 10:53am
NI:
I think we can all stipulate that there are plenty of unhappy lawyers who wish they were doing something else. I think a more useful discussion would be on the practicalities of how to get out of practicing law and into something else. If you really, really hate what you do, how do you transition into a new career? Personally, I haven't a clue. Any ideas?
11.21.2007 11:02am
Hoosier:
Sarah--"I wish I was born in 1845 and had all my choices made for me"

On the down side, there would have been death during childbirth . . .
11.21.2007 11:09am
TerrencePhilip:
The downsides he's talking about are real, but he is exaggerating them for effect (unless you hate practicing law, in which case he's dead-on). Like everything, there's no real way to know it's for you or not without trying it.

In my personal view, the main thing prospective students should understand is that the marketplace difference between elite law grads and everyone else is enormous, and you really are in two completely different worlds. That doesn't mean you can't have a great career, but you should understand that you are not getting $165K your first year when you go to a school ranked in the 40s. You should also understand that alumni connections are usually regional, so unless you went to a top 10 school you are usually better off going to law school in the city or state you want to practice law in. There are exceptions and anecdotes running counter to all the things I've just said, but nonetheless what I'm saying is correct in the overwhelming majority of cases.
11.21.2007 11:17am
Hoosier:
I took a LONG look at law school when I was in college. I aslo took the year after college to clerk in a firm in the Loop. That experience turned me off tremendously, and I didn't go to law school.

Having said that, I never considered any field EXCEPT criminal prosecution. My uncle was an appelate homocide prosecutor in Chicago, kept some infamous serial killers off the streets, and even won a case before the "Warren Burger and the Supremes". The work sounded interesting and rewarding; he lived like a solid middle-to-upper-middle class citizen; and he always said that he could "sleep well at night" knowing that he had kept John Gacy from playing the system.

BUT--He also had to deal with the horrid details of multiple homocides day-in, day-out. (I know, the trial prosecutor had it worse.) I don't have my uncle's positive outlook on life. So I came to the conclusion that prosecution would make me a cynical man by age 40.

So--How do I get a job as a mailman? I've always wanted to do that, but it seems like you have to know someone.
11.21.2007 11:17am
Random3 (mail):
I'm not a lawyer, but I work closely with lawyers on a daily basis. People from outside organizations often assume I am a lawyer - I guess because of how I speak or approach issues or present myself or something. I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or an insult. Almost all of the lawyers I work with and get to know seem to me to be decent, likeable people who care about their work. The common thread I see is that they tend to be pretty smart people - I guess you have to be pretty smart to get through law school. So individually, for at least most of the lawyers I've met, I tend to like them. However, as a group, sometimes I think they should all commit mass suicide (except the ones who are my friends). I'm not sure what makes me think that - maybe it's just all of the stuff I see in the media where seemingly every aspect of life is litigated or subject to legal analysis. Anyway, I guess after having worked with so many of you for so many years, I'm glad I chose the career I chose (engineering) and not lawyering. But I do have a great appreciation for the difficulty and importance of much of your work.
11.21.2007 11:20am
godelmetric (mail):
I don't think that the problem is that the practice of law sucks, but that people go into the law for the wrong reason. If you pick your career just for the money, of course you are going to hate it. I saw the same thing with computer programmers (who didn't even get that when all the jobs moved over seas).
Ding ding ding. I distinctly recall sitting in my first Computer Science class in undergrad -- my chosen major after 16 years of being a computer geek, looking around me, and realizing that there was no way I was going to work in a cubicle next to these people twenty years down the road.

I worked in tech for a while, though. I still code for fun. The author of this piece complains about lawyers being anti-intellectual -- this person has obviously never had to deal with IT people who think that you're lower than pond scum because you use the wrong flavor of Linux or close your brackets in the wrong style.

Law tends to have less of a middle ground than a lot of other fields, I find. There's a huge concentration of glad-handing sharks at one end, a bunch of friendly, intelligent, thoughtful people at the other, and not much in between.

The correct reason to go into a field, law or otherwise, is because it is something you are interested in. The only real problem with the practice of law is that it has a disproportionate number of people who go into it just for the money.
I agree and disagree. There are many law students who enter law school be default, because it's just what you do after getting a liberal arts degree and a decent LSAT, true. But here's how to look at the problem: the only people who finish law school are those who like it and those who, for one reason or another, can't leave.

Frankly, I think pride is a big part of it. No one wants to be the washout.

Cramming a bunch of Type-A compulsive overachievers into a small space where their usual OCD advantage is neutralized is another.

The biggest part of it is the follower mentality -- not conformism, but formalism. This isn't just a law school issue -- lots of people stay through undergrad, even high school, long after it's apparent that it's just not right for them -- because that's just what you do.

It requires a lot of creativity and courage to say "Hell, this undergrad thing isn't working for me -- I should just go out and get a job, and in 4 years my work experience will be better than any degree." But that's a very rare move, in my experience. It also requires a lot of faith in your own judgment. Very few people are willing to make that sort of leap. And law self-selects people who are the most likely to follow the socially-anointed "path to success," the least likely to take the road less traveled -- combine an overwhelming fear of the unknown and fear of failure, mix with years of psychological self-conditioning, and place into a hyper-competitive environment with like-minded neurotics: Ta-da! Law School!
11.21.2007 11:23am
Westerner:
I'm following up on Anderson's comment.
Gowder's case is only strong if you assume that most people are dumb enough to practice in a big city. You want megafirms? Big city. The underpaid do-gooders and suckers who are trapped? Big city.

I practice in a larger town in the West, have billable hours under 1600, get paid 6 figures, have time to spend with my family, and can leave the office if it snows enough so that my other officemates (including the partners) go hit the slopes. Or on a sunny day, we blast off for some cycling. Or running. You get the picture.

My do-gooder friends and sucker buddies all own their own homes, and have relatively low billable hour requirements. Also, because it's a smaller city with smaller firms, they get immediate exposure to the courtroom practice of law (if that's what they want). My coworker has argued in federal court twice in this, his first year of practice.

Somehow, I don't think I got a raw deal in going to law school. And anyone with a mind bright enough to get into law school should be able to avoid the Big Three problems Gowder mentions.
11.21.2007 11:29am
Hoosier:
"Ding ding ding. I distinctly recall sitting in my first Computer Science class in undergrad -- my chosen major after 16 years of being a computer geek, looking around me, and realizing that there was no way I was going to work in a cubicle next to these people twenty years down the road."

I did that for twenty years, but then they took my red stapler. My job description said that I'm supposed to staple things, so I needed a stapler . . .
11.21.2007 11:30am
JohnAnnArbor:
Of course, there are advantages to being a lawyer. You can use obscure laws to steal other people's land.
11.21.2007 11:41am
GW3L (mail):
And I also suggest a couple of years working full time before law school — there's nothing like seeing the working world from the inside to both make you a more disciplined student, and also to give you insight into many of the situations that give rise to the legal issues you will spend three years analyzing.

Absolutely.
11.21.2007 11:47am
Houston Lawyer:
Legal work can be boring, but it doesn't have to be. I was an accounting major undergrad, and would probably have ended up at Arthur Andersen. By going into law I was spared that fate.

Sure there are jerks practicing law. However, my practice focuses on securities offerings along with mergers and acquisitions. My clients are actually happy with the work I do for them, since I am helping them get things done.

My clients are officers and directors of major businesses. The other attorneys in the firm are very interesting people. So almost everyone I deal with is well educated and polite.

In addition, I make an amount of money that I never dreamed possible when I was in school. Life could be a lot worse.
11.21.2007 11:54am
BandarBush (mail):
Gee, the Harvard alumn who worked for the ACLU after graduation, who became disgruntled with his failure as a litigator after only 4 years and went into academia to teach in Standford's POLITICAL SCIENCE PHD program, doesn't like the practice of law...go figure...a bit slanted I'd say.
11.21.2007 12:00pm
alias:
You won't make a ton of money as a prosecutor or defense attorney, but it avoids a lot of the problems he mentions.

Which ones? AFAIK, criminal defense work gives you the benefit of courtroom experience and spares you the drudgery of corporate serfdom, but otherwise combines the worst features of the other jobs and has a few of its own negatives as well.
11.21.2007 12:08pm
theobromophile (www):

And law self-selects people who are the most likely to follow the socially-anointed "path to success," the least likely to take the road less traveled

And selects out those who do not so follow. I've sat through enough interviews from hell to understand that the conformists want conformists... you haven't really lived until you've seen white-shoe attorneys become apoplectic when interviewing an engineer. Oohh... someone who isn't poli sci, econ, or philosophy - who didn't go to law school because what else is one supposed to do with a liberal arts degree! Someone who practised a trade before law school - the riff-raff!
11.21.2007 12:09pm
kidblue:

This socialization process begins on the first day of law school. What's the essence of a sound legal argument? Why, one that comports with precedent, of course. That's following, not leading.


I love this insight. Law is a very conformists enterprise. Even law school, which allows for more big thinking than practice, felt like a social and intellectual prison to me.

My best decision was getting out.
11.21.2007 12:09pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

Some of the happiest and most fulfilled people I have known have been self-employed lawyers running their own law practices.

Yes. The happiest lawyers I know are solos and government employees. Hanging out a shingle and living off your abilities alone, however, is not for everyone. But you really hit your stride after 20 years in practice; by that point all my buddies were AV rated in Martindale.
11.21.2007 12:20pm
Whatever you want it to be:
JohnAnnArbor:

It's interesting that you cite adverse possession as an "obscure law." While it's probably not well-known in the non-legal world, I can guarantee that every single lawyer in the U.S.--and probably every lawyer practicing in any common-law jurisdiction worldwide--is intimately familiar with adverse possession from him first-year property class. I would hardly call that "obscure," but perhaps we're operating from a different dictionary.

A side note: I actually worked on the case mentioned in those articles you link to, at the trial stage. I'm blown away that what was essentialy an angry-neighbor lot-line dispute has become something worthy of a Denver Post editorial.
11.21.2007 12:41pm
Paul Gowder (mail):
Orin: as usual, you have it exactly right w/ "Paul is deliberately stacking the deck to provide a counterpoint to some misunderstandings about practicing law held by a number of law school applicants." Thanks.
11.21.2007 12:41pm
Connecticut Lawyer (mail):
I love the law. I loved law school from the first day. It opened my eyes to a new way of thinking. I still love reading cases, 25 years later. I also get a lot of satisfaction out of practicing law. Counselling clients is fun. But I'm in-house, which is a much happier place than private practice. But the law is not for everyone. It's kind of like music. Either you have an aptitude for it and like it or you don't. Trying to learn an instrument, let alone making a career playing one, when you lack either the aptitude or desire is bound to be frustrating.
11.21.2007 12:52pm
Left Hander (mail):
The article sounds like it was written by someone with only a few years experience, who did the same thing the whole time. The article assumes that one's first legal job will be their only legal job, and that there is no ability to move laterally within the legal field. This is wrong.

I just left a BIGLAW DC firm that does a lot of healthcare-related work. Many of the partners there are folks who came from FDA, OIG, and other government agencies. Many of the top litigators are people are people who who came from government prosecutor positions, especially those involving healthcare fraud and abuse. Outside of the healthcare practice, many of the litigation patners are people who "grew up" outside of big law firms. As a former litigator, my perception was (and is) that BIGLAW litigation associates don't get a lot real courtroom experience, and accordingly, don't make ideal litigation partners (other than to manage someone else's mega-discovery). As a result, a lot of litigation partners come from smaller firms and government where they got real courtroom experience.

As for me, I left the litigation practice to go in-house at a pharma company. I took a reasonable salary cut, but I couldn't be happier with my quality of work and work/life balance -- not to mention benefits. (I hated the firm, but I don't deny that had I not spent several years at the year, I wouldn't have been considered for my new position).

The short is that if you don't like the scenery, stick around for a few years and it will change. While not always perfect, law offers many different directions to take a career, and one shouldn't assume that an initial job forever sets the tone for a 40-year career. Play it long.
11.21.2007 12:59pm
Paul Gowder:
Also -- everyone should read Froomkin's comments, they provide a fair counter-counter-point.

Re: criminal law, it's true, the happiest lawyer I know practices criminal law. But she's a very special case.

Stuart, thanks, but as I recall, you got a higher score on the LSAT than I, and you play classical guitar, so, pot --> kettle. :-)

Bandar, heh, just studying in it (and occasionally teaching some undergrads).

Westerner and others -- yeah, but there are downsides to the non-big-city life too. (Caveat: I'm personally an inveterate city person, and don't do well in rural or small town areas.) Actually, the first job I took out of law school was a classic do-gooder position doing rural legal aid. I think the rural environment brought with it its own problems. For example, turnover among the lawyers at the office was huge because nobody liked living there -- with the result that the support staff, who were locals, were themseves disgruntled and would often undermine the legal staff. The director at one of the other rural offices was notorious for never actually doing any work, and, because the office was so isolated, there were no effective controls over him (I think everyone knew but the people running the organization in the state capital). There was little by way of a social life, except with other lawyers in the organization. And while the terrible salary went a very long way in the area, it didn't exactly allow for much savings when I decided to leave.

As for government lawyers, I agree that many of my comments, particularly with respect to working hours, don't apply there. And the salaries are pretty good, though not even in binoculars range of the ballpark of what people expect at those big firms. But many of my other comments do apply, particularly the bits about intellectual dishonesty and moral ambiguity (imagine working under an administration whose policies with respect to the subject area of your office are, in your lights, unbelievably wicked -- like a liberal working in EPA under Bush or a conservative working in DOJ civil rights under Clinton!). And many of the government lawyers I've met have been all-around jerks too, though not all.
11.21.2007 1:00pm
Cornellian (mail):
This socialization process begins on the first day of law school. What's the essence of a sound legal argument? Why, one that comports with precedent, of course. That's following, not leading.

In law school, a sound legal argument is one that takes existing precedent and uses it in such a way as to make the prof's pet theory look good.
11.21.2007 1:01pm
JohnAnnArbor:

I would hardly call that "obscure," but perhaps we're operating from a different dictionary.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm just someone who knows theft when I see it. That definitely makes me unqualified.
11.21.2007 1:01pm
NaG (mail):
I think Gowder's piece offers an important contribution in slapping some of the sheen off of those lawyer jobs out there. However, I think most of what he says could have been more succinctly summarized as: "If you think law school counts as 'paying your dues,' you're wrong." Even those Harvard grads who snagged the plum clerkship are stuck working the 2000-hour billable year doing scut work for egotistical blowhards for eight years. Ha-ha!

Unlike most other professions, the practice of law can appeal to almost any personality. Between family law, corporate law, litigation, estate planning, tax law, immigration law -- there's something out there for just about anybody if they are willing to look. And I reject the notion that lawyers tend to be followers and not leaders -- note the overrepresentation of lawyers in the presidency and Congress. Gowder lost me on these.
11.21.2007 1:06pm
ellisz (mail):
there's one thing I'd stress to would-be law students - supply and demand. there are many more lawyers than in the recent past, and comparatively less work - esp in the most hotly desired fields and jobs.

in other words - do not believe your prospective school's placement data, it likely is as accurate as Soviet grain production stats were.

also, for private practitioners, billable hours are a major drain on career enjoyment. they essentially penalize productivity. sales guys who cinch the deal quickly hit the links; lawyers who do so go back to their desks and hope to bill more.
11.21.2007 1:07pm
Virginian:
I have to echo the comments about patent law, but you still have to stay away from BigLaw. I spent 2 years at an AmLaw 100 firm. The money was great, but 2000 billable hours of patent prosecution is misery. I left before I got hooked on the big salary, and now work for a small patent boutique. Great working conditions and a decent salary. Every job has its downsides, but overall I am pretty happy.
11.21.2007 1:07pm
r78:
I think people are confusing "practicing law" with what is, in fact, "growing up."

Working long hours, doing things you don't want to do sometimes, dealing with jerks, etc. - that is adult life.

Friends of mine who are in technology, sales, IT, running restaurants, etc. all have their own complaints about their field, too.
11.21.2007 1:17pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
If Gowder indeed graduated law school at 21, no wonder he is bitter about the law. He was way too young and had insufficient life experience at 18 to make that choice.

His first job choice was an error too since he is an "inveterate city person, and don't do well in rural or small town areas". It is consistent with his immaturity at graduation. (I don't mean immaturity in a bad sense. I was plenty immature at 21. It is just a fact of life.)

Plenty of good choices in law besides rural legal aid and LA, Chicago or the East Coast. I think his comments are directed solely at those who think the Ivy League is a ticket to riches. Maybe useful to 10% of law school applicants.
11.21.2007 1:30pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
"Make this decision very carefully. Don't just drift into it because you're not sure what else to do with a humanities degree."


Wouldn't it make more sense to warn college freshmen against majoring in humanities?
11.21.2007 1:31pm
JohnAnnArbor:

Wouldn't it make more sense to warn college freshmen against majoring in humanities?

I knew academic counselors that took sick pleasure from recommending the most useless majors possible.
11.21.2007 1:34pm
Lugo:
Wouldn't it make more sense to warn college freshmen against majoring in humanities?

It would, but the young know-it-alls won't listen ("hey, this is easy and fun!"), so you might as well save your breath.
11.21.2007 1:37pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

Wouldn't it make more sense to warn college freshmen against majoring in humanities?

The unhappiest people I knew in undergrad were engineering and physical science students who had neither aptitude nor interest, but wanted a job credential. Do what you're good at and you enjoy, rather than try to pound your square self into a round hole.
11.21.2007 1:45pm
godelmetric (mail):
Friends of mine who are in technology, sales, IT, running restaurants, etc. all have their own complaints about their field, too.


I would like to reiterate my earlier claim that anyone who thinks that lawyers are more annoying than IT people has been fortunate enough to have not spent enough time around IT people.
11.21.2007 2:02pm
Anderson (mail):
I think people are confusing "practicing law" with what is, in fact, "growing up."

Working long hours, doing things you don't want to do sometimes, dealing with jerks, etc. - that is adult life.


Amen. Acting like an adult seems to be regarded as an unconscionable hardship by many people nowadays. Everything's supposed to be fun, Fun, FUN!

As I like to say, if my job were fun, I'd probably have to pay to work here, instead of vice-versa.
11.21.2007 2:11pm
Larry VanSickle (mail):
"short shrift", not "short thrift".
11.21.2007 2:21pm
readingroom (mail) (www):
I, too, strenuously disagree with Paul's account. Full response here.

Cheers-
11.21.2007 2:30pm
Just Saying:
Of course, there are advantages to being a lawyer. You can use obscure laws to steal other people's land.

Yes, obscure laws like adverse possession.
11.21.2007 2:44pm
Crackmonkeyjr (www):
Yes, obscure laws like adverse possession.
That was the "obscure law" he was talking about? Heck, adverse possession is a fairly common sitcom plot device. It's one of those things that people enjoy getting to in law school because they had actually heard of it before (as opposed to say "consideration" or "proximate cause").

Not only that, but the chances are that those articles are blowing the situation out of proportion, or at least heavily biased in favor of the original owners. While I can't spout out the exact elements of adverse possession off the top of my head, I do know that you generally have to be using the land for a decade or more without any action on the part of the original owners and in most, if not all, jurisdictions, you have to prove that you honestly thought that you owned the land. In some states, you even have to be paying the property tax on it before you can get adverse possession.
11.21.2007 3:00pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
There is some good advice on this thread.

After 43 years practicing law, I still think the best decision I ever made was quitting my first job after college and going full-time to a first-class law school.

During my career as a trial lawyer, I have worked for the US Government, big firms and specialty botiques. Along with a friend, I also started my own firm over 30 years ago which grew from 2 to 50 attorneys in 18 years. During that time and later, I also founded six business ventures, both for-profit and not-for-profit with a variety of partners. Some of those were successful and some were not.

I am now practicing in a "virtual" firm with a long time friend and colleague, and running a public interest firm I founded. That is my chosen method of "retirement". I am able to take the cases I want for the clients I want to represent.

Here's my bottom line:

Law school and "the law" provides a very broad base from which to invent and reinvent yourself; but you have to know what you enjoy and are good at and manage yourself accordingly.
11.21.2007 3:02pm
JohnAnnArbor:
Yes, obscure laws like adverse possession.

Which, in this case, is indistinguishable from theft. "Gee, we held a party there once a while back, without telling you and knowing it wasn't ours. So that makes it ours!"

Only lawyers could defend such injustice.
11.21.2007 3:04pm
JohnAnnArbor:
Hey, maybe I should find some remote property lawyers own and build a little shed on it. Then I'll come back in 18 years and just say it's mine. I mean, why not?
11.21.2007 3:07pm
Pliny, the Elder (mail):
I had a fellowship to (top 40 but not top 20)law school, so very little debt. (I got some more later on, but that is growing up.)
I enjoyed law schoo1!
My first position after law school was a fellowship to Cambridge, then I clerked for a state supreme court. I loved virtually every second of both positions.
Since then I have had several more jobs (including teaching full-time at a law school for a year), some better than others, but I agree with those on the site who say that is growing up.
My father was a postal clerk for 30 years. He expected, and received, no satisfaction whatsoever from his job.
I have my bad days, but I almost never regret having gone to law school.
OTOH anyone who would not go to law school based upon that essay probably should not go.
11.21.2007 3:11pm
Crackmonkeyjr (www):
JohnAnnArbor:

If all they could prove is "Gee, we held a party there once a while back, without telling you and knowing it wasn't ours. So that makes it ours!" they would be laughed out of the courtroom.

To win in an adverse possession claim, you have to show that, for the entirety of the statutory period (usually 10 years), you continuously and openly used the property, without the permission of the original owner. This isn't about having a party on the land 10 years ago, this is about treating the property as your back yard for that entire period.

As I mentioned above, this often isn't even enough, as you have to have some good reason for believing that it actually is your property, such as the fence surrounding your property cuts off a bit of your neighbors property or the previous owners incorrectly told you that your property line went out further than it did.
11.21.2007 3:13pm
JohnAnnArbor:
Better read the articles. It's pretty clear the former-mayor-and-judge who pulled this stunt has special privileges. He got a restraining order against the rightful owners for building a fence on their property. It took less than 3 hours. Then he made all these claims for having used the land and "grown attached" to it--no photos of the supposed events provided, of course.

The victims were warned that the judge would try to steal their land, but they didn't believe it was possible. They walked by it all the time. Turns out that theft is legal in Boulder if you have connections and obscure laws on your side.

This is one reason I believe lawyers make bad policymakers. They can and will justify anything. A normal person looks at this and sees theft and would pass a law against it.
11.21.2007 3:19pm
David Chesler (mail) (www):
Counter^n-point. I was a struggling pre-med at Harvard. Maybe I should have continued in medicine, but at that time I was in it for the wrong reasons. I liked math and computers, so even with a year away from school (working as a messenger, and as a programmer, but they weren't really real jobs) I just fell back into software. As others noted, I've been out of work (and looking) some 25 of the past 75 months. On the other hand, I get home almost in time for dinner every night, and I can take a day off. (If I worked 60 to 80 hour weeks I'd have more options.)

I didn't think about law as a career until it seemed too late. One friend stayed with medicine, and went into pathology. He works two or three jobs in labs, and is struggling with income and expenses about three or four times mine. Another friend left IT for law school after a year or two, while his wife supported them, and has risen in a federal department. He did warn me that every week on LA Law they were all getting cases about as interesting as an average lawyer gets every few years. (I don't think adverse possession and prescriptive easements are obscure.)

I like programming, but I don't think I'd mind being the guy who has read the instructions on the inside of the box. A family friend is in a small, local practice. He does property, he prepared my will. He's a member of various civic organizations. He does all right. I think I could deal with that.

If I had a time machine, maybe I'd have gone into investment banking, whatever that is, or quant analysis. I spent the first couple of years after college living with my parents and pretty bored after work. (I'm not going to start that now, I've got debt, and children, and by the time those are gone I'll be in bed earlier than those guys go home.) Definitely I'd warn myself that after about 1999 I wouldn't be able to walk down Route 128 with a sign that says "Will code for food" and expect to have a job that day. Friends who got locked into something good in software, or who took the time to get an advanced degree, or who were one of the many winners of the dot.com lottery, have done well. (Those who married healthy women with their own careers did better, too.)

Has anybody said of any career "I got into ______, and without particular good luck, just a bit of hard work, I've got enough money, I enjoy going to work in the mornnig, I've got personal time, I don't have an ulcer, and I still have my soul"?
11.21.2007 3:26pm
Crackmonkeyjr (www):
I read a couple of the articles (mostly editorials) and my conclusion is that either this judge will be laughed out of court or they are leaving out important facts. It is no small task winning an adverse possession claim.
11.21.2007 3:34pm
David Chesler (mail) (www):
JohnAnnArbor - the application in that Colorado case might stink, or it might be unjust, but it wasn't an "obscure law" or "loophole".

I have a neighbor who bought a house about 10 years ago. There is general belief that the cement deck that the former owner built some 30 years ago is actually over the line and into the adjoining vacant lot, the one that nobody can figure out who owns. If somebody someday tries to solidify ownership of that vacant lot, he's going to be out of luck trying to get the deck removed.
11.21.2007 3:41pm
Just Saying:
JohnAnnArbor-- Adverse possession is hard to prove, and the burden of proof is on the judge/mayor. Even your own editorials referred to 'parties', not 'a party'. Adverse possession as a concept is older than the United States. I could understand an argument that the law is unjust (though I disagree, on economic efficiency grounds; IIRC, Posner has written persuasively on this topic). 'Obscure', however, is ridiculous. If adverse possession is obscure, then there's virtually no law which *isn't* obscure.

Crackmonkey-- Good analysis, yeah. Adverse possession is part of the public consciousness. New rule: If there's a good explanation of a law on wikipedia (and, in this case, there is), it's officially not obscure.
11.21.2007 3:47pm
c.f.w. (mail):
Hidden downside to prosecution/government work - every US government lawyer (or nearly every) needs to be a US citizen. This rules out 95% of world population. It leads to parochial, hide-bound attitudes (not ours, of course, but our bosses).

If hiring for government jobs was nationality/citizenship blind, I would find it a much more attractive option (despite the poor pay). I say that as a US citizen.

Add poor pay, plus duty to play politics (evaluations every 6 months), plus lack of diversity in nationalities/citizenship and it looks like a "make due" arrangement, as opposed to a deal to strive for with $150,000 of law school debt.
11.21.2007 3:59pm
PD in Fla.:
Describing criminal law as "boring work"? Amusing. Something tells me Mr. Gowder has never practiced in the field.
11.21.2007 4:00pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
My first week of law school, they went around the class and asked everyone why they came to law school. Again and again, you heard the usual, "I want to help [insert victim group here]." When they got to me, I said I came because I wanted to guarantee that I had a job for the rest of my life. People looked at me like I was nuts. One of my (formerly idealistic) classmates remembered I said that, and told me recently, "I now understand what you meant."

Look, I work in a 10-person civil defense firm in a mid-sized city. I don't make $100K a year, but I make a good living and I only have to bill 150 hours a month. (A number I easily beat without exception). I am satisifed because it is what I always thought it would be.

Besides, I have come to find that the attorneys that come from the supposedly more prestigous firms in town have a high rate of divorce and always seem miserable. It seems like many of them were once the type who once thought it was all money, private jets, and junkets to Vegas.
11.21.2007 4:26pm
Ben P (mail):

Crackmonkey-- Good analysis, yeah. Adverse possession is part of the public consciousness. New rule: If there's a good explanation of a law on wikipedia (and, in this case, there is), it's officially not obscure.



I'm not entirely sure about that. My reaction on learning about adverse possession 1L year was "you can do that?, that's awesome."

But I would expect that most people who had been in a land dispute over a driveway or a deck or some similar common cause of the "6 inch" adverse possession claims would know that it's possible.
11.21.2007 4:26pm
David Chesler (mail) (www):
If adverse possession is obscure, then there's virtually no law which *isn't* obscure.

When I read the teaser for that story I thought "Good, I'll get to learn something obscure that I didn't already know." (That really did happen to me in a series of cases that were in the Boston Globe last month and the Times more recently: what happens when the tenant is current on a good lease, but the landlord defaults on the mortgage? I was surprised [as were a bunch of evicted tenants] that the obligations of the lease do not run with the property, even with a successors clause, at least some of the time like when the mortgage is superior to the lease or the lease isn't "recorded". That's obscure.) I was disappointed that the obscure law here was adverse possession.
11.21.2007 5:31pm
Cornellian (mail):
I think many laypeople might recognize adverse possession under the term "squatter's rights." I think most people understand that if you occupy land that you think is yours and there's no one showing up to say it isn't yours, then eventually you're going to have an ownership issue, even if that might happen more quickly than many people expect. I'd be surprised if there are many people out there who think you can occupy land for 100 years, for example, and think you're the owner of it, only to get evicted by the great grandchildren of some previous owner despite them (and their ancestors) having done nothing to assert that ownership for the past 100 years.
11.21.2007 5:57pm
markm (mail):
David Chesler: The case you described is not much like the McLean case, if the newspaper description is anywhere near accurate:

1) Building the deck over the property line was presumably accidental. Furthermore, the house with the deck was sold, so the original trespassers weren't even in the picture anymore. OTOH, the McLeans obviously knew they were walking on someone else's land, and are now trying to benefit from their own trespass.

2) A concrete deck is an improvement upon the infringed-upon land; I don't think many people would call wearing ruts in walking paths "improvements".

3) The deck is continually present and visible whenever the owner of the vacant land comes around to check on it; not so a couple of people walking or picnicking every now and then.

4) The owner of the deck was clearly in possession of the land, but is walking around now and then "possession"? I think the McLean's case is also clearly different from the cases where a customary path became established through private land and eventually became a right of way under the law; it doesn't appear that the McLean's weren't using their paths to go through the vacant lot to get to the other side. Also, if rights to a thoroughfare were at issue, a reasonable remedy would be to request a right of way be retained across the land and around the owner's planned construction, rather than enjoining all construction.

So to me, the deck case is a classic case of why there is a law of adverse possession, while the McLean's seem to be abusing it.

And finally, this is yet another illustration of how lawyers encourage people to be assholes. That is, I'd feel rather like an asshole if I went out and ordered people away who were merely walking around a distant unfenced portion of my 30 acres of land, not infringing upon my privacy, treating my land as a public road, nor causing any loss to me - but apparently I must do this or risk losing the land...
11.21.2007 7:52pm
anduril (mail):

Has anybody said of any career "I got into ______, and without particular good luck, just a bit of hard work, I've got enough money, I enjoy going to work in the mornnig, I've got personal time, I don't have an ulcer, and I still have my soul"?

I can say that. I graduated from LS in 1977 and never practiced a day in my life. I retired at age 57 from an investigative job I applied to while still in LS. I had fun, enjoyed going to work, was proud of what I did, had personal time for many, many outside interests and don't have an ulcer. All the same, I'm enjoying the hell out of my retirement.

Interestingly, just about the only time I used my law degree (and bar membership) was when my neighbor (in a built up urban area) tried to claim adverse possession to a strip of my lot. I wrote back to her attorney saying: I'm an attorney, too--don't make me laugh. Never heard from him again. I can't say I'd like to make a living writing bogus letters like the one he wrote.
11.21.2007 7:54pm
Enoch:
Hidden downside to prosecution/government work - every US government lawyer (or nearly every) needs to be a US citizen.

Not a bug, a feature! That is as it should be. Anyone who works for the United States government should have to be a United States citizen.

This rules out 95% of world population.

Let them go work for their own governments!

It leads to parochial, hide-bound attitudes (not ours, of course, but our bosses).

It rightly excludes people from running our country who have a primary loyalty to another country!

If hiring for government jobs was nationality/citizenship blind, I would find it a much more attractive option (despite the poor pay). I say that as a US citizen.

Such a policy would be insane. I say that as a US citizen.
11.21.2007 9:10pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
In the dim shadows of my old and cluttered mind, I seem to remember from first year property class the rule at common law that in order to win an adverse possession case, the claimant's possession of the land had to be open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for the entire prescriptive period (then 21 years, but shortened in many states).

Is that at least partly right?
11.21.2007 9:11pm
anduril (mail):
Jim Rhoads, that's about right. Where I live the common law has basically been embodied in a statute. Adverse possession was sensible policy in some situations--may still be in some areas for all I know--but no urban jurisdiction wants their court dockets cluttered with neighbors suing neighbors for a foot wide strip of land when there are records clearly defining the boundaries for one and all to see, and everyone is given a survey at the closing.
11.21.2007 10:13pm
Mary (mail):
Humm, this article reminds me of some professional writers.

Whenever anyone comes to them asking for advice on being a professional writer, they always say "You have no talent and you will never make it."

Because if you would be put off by that comment you would never make it as a writer.
11.21.2007 10:36pm
Skyler (mail) (www):
I thought this was supposed to be about careers in law, but adverse possession works too.

I got the impression that the adverse possession was of an easement, not the entire property. In this case, he would have to show that not only was land used openly, notoriously, etc, but that there is no other reasonable way to access his property.

I thought for non-easement adverse possession you have to have made improvements to the land, not just walk on it from time to time.
11.21.2007 10:50pm
Skyler (mail) (www):
I thought this was supposed to be about careers in law, but adverse possession works too.

I got the impression that the adverse possession was of an easement, not the entire property. In this case, he would have to show that not only was land used openly, notoriously, etc, but that there is no other reasonable way to access his property.

I thought for non-easement adverse possession you have to have made improvements to the land, not just walk on it from time to time.
11.21.2007 10:50pm
Passing By:
What's obscure? I guess it depends on what you know. I don't consider it at all obscure that foreclosure will usually terminate a tenancy. I can understand why both adverse possession and the details of foreclosure law (and a lot of other things lawyers find pretty obvious) would be seen as obscure by laypersons. I can also understand how somebody living in a town like Ann Arbor, composed of long-established lots and platted subdivisions, might think that adverse possession is "obscure", even though such actions are probably commonplace in neighboring counties and even townships.

What strikes me as a bit unusual about the adverse possession case under discussion (although it doesn't surprise me that rural states have softer standards for adverse possession, and I expect the law would not be obscure to a Colorado practitioner) is that Colorado apparently doesn't require the adverse use to be either "open and notorious" - here the use was apparently undetectable to all but the judge and his wife. I think what most offends people about the case is that the judge knew it wasn't his land, and set about (or lied about) a long-term course of actions which would not be apparent to others (invisible parties aside) to lay claim to land he knew wasn't his. Given that he was offered part of the land for free and declined, it also appears that part of his goal was to keep an empty lot next door rather than having a house built. To me, the editorials seem a bit charitable.

I think this does tie back, in a way, to the question of employment. If this is the type of discussion that tickles your fancy - if you get excited about analyzing the various aspects of adverse possession law ["The elements of a claim of adverse possession are use of property that is actual, adverse, hostile, under claim of right, exclusive, and uninterrupted for the statutory period. Salazar v. Terry, 911 P.2d 1086 (Colo. 1996). In Colorado, eighteen years of adverse possession is conclusive evidence of absolute ownership. Section 38-41-101, C.R.S. 2000."], the law may be for you. But if you go to school expecting to work in a particular area of law, you may find when you get out that (a) there are no jobs in that area, (b) you can find work in that area, but you'll have to do other work (and perhaps primarily other work) as well, and/or (c) it may not be a lucrative area of practice.

Knowing what I know now, if I could turn back the clock I would forego law school and make a few billion in the original dot com boom. But I can't, and really I am pleased with where legal practice has led me, even though I'm not in anything that most people would recognize as the typical practice of law.

Perhaps that's the secret that new graduates need to think about - law may not be what you expect, but from time to time you will find an area of practice that inspires you, see an opportunity for work or revenue that others have looked over (or deem beneath them), or find something that really interests you (even if it isn't directly law related and may not turn into a major source of revenue in the future). If you ignore an opportunity, that's fine, but if you grab it you may be able to transform your life and future practice. (You just have to get past any mental blocks you may have about what lawyers are "supposed to do", and think about what [i]you[/i] think rather than what others may think of you.)

When I read about how you "can't make much money" practicing criminal law, I think of some of my friends who practice criminal law and have to disagree. One works probably twenty hours per week in his established drunk driving defense practice, and clears more than most of the other lawyers in his county. He had to work a lot harder than that to establish his practice, and he stays on top of his practice area, but he's carved out a very nice life for himself.
11.22.2007 11:09am
Tony Tutins (mail):
A couple of comments:

In California you actually have to pay taxes on the land to get it by adverse possession. But you can still get the use of your neighbor's land by prescriptive easement. So if you notice your neighbor cutting across your property, you might want to grant him a license (e.g. the written equivalent of "Sure, Bob, you can cut across my property") so he cannot later claim the element of hostility.

While U.S. government jobs may be limited to U.S. citizens, state and local jobs are not. When my uncle was selling buses to various transit authorities, he was surprised at the high percentage of immigrant engineers he had to deal with.
11.22.2007 12:13pm
Paul Gowder:
Bob from Ohio: well, sure. But I think 22-year-olds don't have enough life experience to choose law school either.
11.22.2007 1:20pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"3. The Sucker. This is the club for those who don't go to a top ten law school.

The legal prof ceremony andession is really two professions: the elite lawyers and everyone else. Most of the former start out at big law firms. Many of the latter never find gainful legal employment."

Yes, and when those in "the club" want to make sure those that are in the "everyone else" category NEVER find gainful employment, they join THIS elite HLS "Club" and use the 3rd and 4th tier law grads as research experimental fodder:

"U.S. Department of Justice
Criminal Division
Washington, D.C. 20530

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COUNTERTERRORISM SECTION PARTICIPATION IN HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CLINICAL PROGRAM

This memorandum sets forth the agreement between Harvard Law School and the Counterterrorism Section (CTS) of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice establishing a relationship with the Clinical Program of Harvard Law School that will provide student research and analytical assistance to CTS."

It appears certain HLS top of their class folks race to sign up, as did "AnnTM:"

"AnnTM
Member
Posts: 119
(5/18/04 9:15 am)
Hmm...

BITING MY TONGUE (because I work for the appellate court that could hear her case, and I have access to her pleadings below)."
source

"galloper
Posts: 199
(5/18/04 11:28 am)
Re: DK's link

Doo-be-doo-be-doo....

I have Paaacer....


(I gotta say, that is an impressive list of defendants!)


AnnTM
Member
Posts: 128
(5/18/04 11:39 am)
Re: DK's link

GAAAHHH! Galloper, email me! I want to talk about this stuff with somebody and not feel guilty.
Edited by: AnnTM at: 5/18/04 12:12 pm"


"Contemporary lawyering is often an expensive form of childish game-playing with the rules of civil procedure. It's psychological warfare for minute tactical advantage."

I could not agree more.

"The practice of law is the development of a habit of extreme intellectual dishonesty where the routine is to state one's opponent's arguments as uncharitably as possible in aid of weakening their impact and conceal every possible fact or principle that is against one's interest which one isn't explicitly required to disclose."

No doubt.

"If you ignore an opportunity, that's fine, but if you grab it you may be able to transform your life and future practice. (You just have to get past any mental blocks you may have about what lawyers are 'supposed to do'"...

I imagine one way to grab an opportunity and propel oneself to the top of that dog-eat-dog lawyer employment world is to sign HLS' above-referenced "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING," which was readily publicly available on its Internet website when I retrieved it a couple days ago -- but Heck if you can find any trace of it on the DOJ's Internet website.

Hey, NYTimes, where are your reporters? doesn't the public have a right to know HLS is feeding it best and brightest law review editors into DOJ's Counterterrorism Section and using 3rd or 4th tier law grads with autism as involuntary research experimental subjects without their informed consent?

Oh, I forgot, no one wants to talk about THIS legal profession ranking criteria.
11.22.2007 5:31pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
corr: apparently, the link function malfunctioned, and turned everything after the link into purple text. But if you click on the purple, you will get the second source link for the "AnnTM" postings.
11.22.2007 5:33pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Apparently, people with autism who make it through law school and pass a hard Bar Exam like California's are research subjects for the autism-obsession of HLS-DOJ Clinial Programs!
11.22.2007 5:35pm
TCO (mail):
What do you think the ideal mindset or undergrad background/skillset is for doing law? In economics, it's very noteworthy that top academics DON'T have undergrads in econ. They come from engineering or science or math. Basically undergrad econ types are weaker mathematically in ability and training.
11.23.2007 8:52pm
BJurvick (mail):
Yes, the grass is ALWAYS greener! Why doesn't the author talk about how management consulting, investment banking, and most other white-collar professions suck equally as much if not more than the law, for their own reasons?

Virtually every issue the author raises with the law applies to other white-collar professions.

Consulting: sitting in front of an Excel spreadsheet for 16 hours a day, traveling 4 days/week and living out of hotels, then getting counseled out in 2-3 years under most firms' stringent up-or-out policy. Your reward: lateraling to some crappy middle-management position in constant fear of being laid off or outsourced and making $110K for the rest of your life.

Banking: working 22 hours/day plus weekends, again staring at Excel all day and night (much better than doc review!), getting a "huge" bonus the first year that allows you to live in a 900 sqft studio in NY (where all the banking jobs are), then getting laid off the next. Reward: lateraling to some crappy in-house finance position at Home Depot or IBM making $120k per year.

Of course, being part of the 1/10 of 1% that's lucky enough to make it to a good PE or VC job is "possible" -- these jobs are probably better than law across all dimensions, but so is being an astronaut. So perhaps we should all forgo law and apply to NASA?

Bottom line: despite the perceptions of all these former lawyers who regret law school and are trying to warn off everyone else, most law students know exactly what they're getting into.
11.23.2007 10:24pm
U.Va. 3L:
The problem I see with Gowder's critique is one others have pointed out--the unspoken assumption that you have to be in either a primary market or Southeastern Ohio Legal Aid. Of course public interest lawyers in New York will have terrible problems affording it, and of course a young associate at some Vault top-10 firm will be worked to death, then cut loose when it turns out he doesn't have nine lives.

I knew that wasn't for me, and that's why I chose a top firm at a secondary market in the Midwest, where I will be making a comfortable living with a much lower billable hours requirement and working in a group with partners who have a reputation for being humane, kind mentors. Besides, you couldn't pay me enough money to live in any primary market (other than Chicago) in the first place.
11.24.2007 10:50am
NickM (mail) (www):
Mary, no one other than you and your husband wants to read your repetitive whining. Go find someplace else to troll and complain that the traffic laws are unconstitutional as applied to you.

Nick
11.24.2007 5:57pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
NickM, what are you with the DOJ uphold the unlawful segregation by language, standardized test score, law school rankings, and class rankings that violates 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.130(d)?

I likewise suggest if you don't like Tennessee v. Lane, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 3386 (2004) ruling that such laws as you reference enforced through discirminatory State court services violate numerous fundamental constitutional rights, you take it up with either Congress or justices of the Supreme Court. Until then, your dribble is not the law in this Nation.

You also have an onsession with feeding so-called "trolls" with autism--say, did YOU graduate Harvard Law School and participate in their "Counterterrorism" psychiatric research experiment on 3rd and 4th tier law school grads with autism without informed consent? The research experiment that is traversing the entire blogosphere of autism blogs?

I think Harvard just got greedy to get some of those research dollars anticipated when Congress funds the Combatting Autism Act, and had to have a reason-conveniently supplied by having obsessive HLS law review students lacking adequate supervision run amok profiling persons with autism as 'future homegrown terrorists'

Wait until all those parents of every 1 in 130 autistic children realize their children are not more than research guinea pigs for the elite at HLS.

I'll bet those parents don't know Harvard Law School's Americans With Disabilities Act accommdoatiosn page does not specifically mention autism as a disability any admittee to Harvard would have.

No wonder Harvard Law School rejects accomplished persons with autism from their Law School programs, and profits from a Dean's autism segregative standardized tests--"separate" by test score segregation is "not equal."

You can whine somewhere else yourself, or get over your tantrum a person with autism posts here and you have to live in a world where persons with autism are fast becoming the majority at a more rapid pace than illegal Mexicans.
11.25.2007 3:00pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
corr:
"uphold"=upholding
"justices"=Justices
"You also have an onsession"=You also have an obsession
"Harvard Law School's Americans With Disabilities Act accommdoatiosn page"=Harvard Law School's Americans With Disabilities Act accommodations page

And, I also think Harvard would make far more profit by inventing a whole new genre of electronic performance tests suited to persons with autism and profiting from THOSE tests in the expanding autism market than the old-outdated standardized tests in a shrinking market. Perhaps you would need a Marketing class to understand, but I am sure Harvard Law School's joint JD/MBA program could obligingly direct you to resources where you can read for yourself about product cyles.
11.25.2007 3:07pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Maybe Harvard Law School sold DOJ counterrorism on letting the student law review students run amok on persons with autism from 3rd and 4th tier law schools to do additional psychiatric research on THIS experiment—without informed consent. Is THAT what the entire Volokh "Pig" thread was about—telling me to go watch "Carrie?"

Check out the "book called Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist by Alston Chase. Chase contends that a contributing factor in Ted Kaczynski's deadly rage was a psychological experiment he volunteered for while a student at Harvard. The study, directed by renowned psychologist Henry Murray, was designed to test how young, gifted men would respond to heightened stress.

Included in the study was an experience known as "The Dyad". First, students would submit numerous papers and engage in a variety of tests designed to establish a personality profile and life perspective. Students would be escorted into a room where they were directed to sit in a chair facing a blinding light. Then, a law school student would fire questions and insults at them attempting to humiliate them, break them down and reduce them to tears or furious anger.

Kacynski was only 16 years old when he went through this. Chase suggests that this experience, added to a general positivist, "value-neutral" philosophy propounded at Harvard at the time, pushed an already-disturbed young man over the edge." See HERE

It appears for Harvard Law School persons with autism and high IQs are mere experimental research fodder. But the REAL mentally flawed persons is the HLS executive law review editor who posted all the confidential stuff to the public on blogs. A person with autism given the same elite HLS opportunities would not have mentally broken and done such a "tell-all" as we are not seeing from the HLS student.
11.25.2007 3:51pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
corr: "not seeing"=now seeing
11.25.2007 3:54pm
NickM (mail) (www):
Anyone else interested in starting a pool on when she gets designated a vexatious litigant? California allows a litigant represented by counsel to be so diesignated in extraordinary circumstances.

Nick
11.26.2007 3:51pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
NickM, the same 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk, TN lawyer, and other participants who admitted stalking me and being mentally obsessed to the point of Google mapping my home spoke the same statement you now make.

"PumpkinsMom
Member
Posts: 41
(5/17/04 9:26 pm)
That's IT!!

Let's have her declared a vexasious (sp?) litigant. Then they would have to go to court first and prove that they even have a definable and sustainable cause and THEN they can sue."

PumpkinsMom
Member
Posts: 41
(5/17/04 9:26 pm)
That's IT!!
Source

"Towanda
Member
Posts: 1104
(5/18/04 1:12 pm)
Re: CP

I have this insane obsession with meeting her in person. Like, anyone up for a trip to FL??"
Source

"QuietlyIrish
Member
Posts: 45
(5/12/04 4:58 pm)
Re: Oh God! Contentious topic #3....the ADA is back!

By the way, who in the name of all things holy married Cellos Pride?!? I'd love to get a look at that dude if he in fact exists. Damn.
- Formerly Frankiedaman -

miniwelsh
Moderator
Posts: 1717
(5/12/04 4:58 pm)
Re: Oh God! Contentious topic #3....the ADA is back!

Oh man. That person is really crazy. I wish someone would send her a link to the TTR."
Source

"galloper
Posts: 201
(5/18/04 1:19 pm)
Trip to FL

I yahoo mapped her address off of the pleadings (I know, I'm an evil child). It really does appear to be a boat slip!"
Source

"AnnTM
Member
Posts: 111
(5/13/04 10:49 am)
Re: RE: her

…I wonder where she keeps her horse in FL, if she has to live on a leaky sailboat? Being from FL, I wonder if anyone I know down there knows her."
Source

"AnnTM
Member
Posts: 130
(5/18/04 1:55 pm)
Re: lol

…I do know that I cannot belong to any organizations that might come before the court (like EPA, or NAACP, or NOW), cannot make political donations or belong to politcal groups, cannot ever protest anything ever, etc. But they never said anything about having an unhealthy obsession with a litigant I encounter on an internet BB."
Source

"AnnTM
Member
Posts: 1288
(8/26/04 3:37 pm)
Re: word

I don't think I'm a bully, but I would love to have a defense team."
Source

"squishy
Member
Posts: 1582
(5/12/04 5:03 pm)
Re: Oh God! Contentious topic #3....the ADA is back!

RileyT made me laugh out loud. Forks in eyeballs = disability"
Source


"Towanda
Member
Posts: 871
(4/22/04 4:18 pm)
?

Although the angel of death was freaking hilarious , is there any way we can just erase this whole thread?? I despise it."
Source

"AnnTM
Member
Posts: 119
(5/18/04 9:15 am)
Hmm...

BITING MY TONGUE (because I work for the appellate court that could hear her case, and I have access to her pleadings below).

Spot
Posts: 71
(5/18/04 9:24 am)
OH dear Ann ...

You must have some WICKED bite marks in your tongue right now!
I dont know how you can STAND it!"
Source
11.27.2007 12:44am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
NickM, I forgot to mention the best statement among the obsessive stalking participants directed to myself and my husband of all:

"Diamond Knight
Posts: 1726
(6/1/04 1:25 pm)
Re: I'm trailblazer from COTH!

Whoa! Awesome, trailblazer! I wonder how we missed that one?
'I'm going to fuck you beyond mortal comprehension, and plunge you into financial ruin!'"
Source
11.27.2007 1:16am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
I think rather than your analogy, NickM, the more appropriate analogy is my husband and I are like Nancy Kerrigan attacked by several Tonya Hardings.
11.27.2007 1:32am
NickM (mail) (www):
Since your victim complex has gone to the extent of sending repeated links to that thread, I took the liberty of reading it.

This garbage from your husband is almost funny:

rileyT, the rest of you, and Erin (weatherford) for COTH, take the discriminatory ADA exclusion Notice off this thread, and re-open all the threads of CP's you have shut down grounded on the ADA -- today you all got outvoted by a 5:4 United States Supreme Court decision that Lane &Jones CAN sue the Tennessee State Courts for monetary damages for violating the ADA. CP my mentally and physically disabled wife (who is covered under the ADA) filed a motion in support of the winning side.


So is this from you:

Erin (moderator), here's how it's going to go. We are sending COTH lawyers a demand to reopen the ADA threads which had to do with horses and legitimate topics, at the same time you are allowing the explicitly exclusionary threads and banning the ADA horse topics, and stop the outright discrimination, harassment, ridiculing, bullying of myself based on direct comments about my disability, mental disability, suggesting re: special Olympics my IQ is at 75 or lower, and outright refusal for ACCESS to this BB Board by reason of my disability -- or we will see COTH, a Title III, ADA private "place of public accommodation" under 42 U.S.C. Section 12181, which is subject to meeting the requirements of title II of the ADA as to any zoning, operating permits, any type of government regulation in a Federal court and we will ask a court whether COTH should be held to have violated my rights under the ADA -- you are talking to CP. We will also find out of COTH is subject to removal of any federal funding under the Rehabiliation Act of 1973 for the same. You just laid down your discrimination challenge, and asked for Copurt intervention, and I am taking you up on it. I will see you in Court, so I suggest if you have not already informed COTH's lawyers what has gone on here in your job, that you do so now. I have cc'd this post, so if you delete it and don;t tell COTH's lawyers, I am sure they will want to know why.


This one suggests that the California Bar Exam you passed was way too easy:

JrJumper, I would venture to guess your Split Creek Farm is also a Title III, ADA "place of public accommodation" under 42 U.S.C. Section 12181. (Injuntive relief is available). And, you have attacked my husband (first quoted post), as well as myself in retaliation, violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 12203. (monetary damages are available). Address your complaints to the right person. My husband and I are two different people. He is a lawyer, I am not, but I can assure you we both know the ADA. I don't have to take discrimination under the guise the ADA as applied to horses on this Board is "off topic." If we have to get a Court order to regulate the discrimination occurring on this Board, then that is what we will do.


Why didn't you bring this one up?

A-4. Americans with Disabilities Act Complaint
City Attorney Zimmet advises that the Police Department has received a complaint filed by Mary
Day-Petrano against numerous defendants alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The defendants include the State of California, the Supreme Court of Florida, numerous
judges and bar officials in Florida and California. The complaint alleges that Officer Burke violated
the Plaintiff's ADA rights when he gave her a citation for careless driving after a traffic accident.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. The City will
be defending both the Police Department and Officer Burke in this matter.


Now this actually is funny.

Gal has a lot of time on her hands.... I'd never heard of a 46 page hand-written fourth amended complaint before. That's actually pretty impressive!


Being an obnoxious a**hole is not a disability under the ADA. Tough luck.

Nick
11.27.2007 3:31am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
NickM, of course, I have a "record of" substantially limiting disabilities previously protected by the ADA; thus it is my disabilities, primarily autism, and my actual ADA challenges, that were and are being attacked, interfered with, and retaliated against, not the deliberate mischaracterization you have proffered. I have to wonder if you are one of those posters participating in admitted blog-hopping to attack me:

"AnnTM
Member
Posts: 194
(5/31/04 10:42 pm)
Re: OK, I sent the following Email to Dateline....

Just in case anyone's wondering, I deleted some of the references to where I work, etc., from this email. Mention of CP's return has me paranoid, particularly since she noted the bashing on other BB's."
Source

"AnnTM
Member
Posts: 119
(5/18/04 9:15 am)
Hmm...

BITING MY TONGUE (because I work for the appellate court that could hear her case, and I have access to her pleadings below).

Spot
Posts: 71
(5/18/04 9:24 am)
OH dear Ann ...

You must have some WICKED bite marks in your tongue right now!
I dont know how you can STAND it!"
Source

I might also call your attention to the Copyright infringment discussion (including how the posters you are citing participated with "AnnTM" the 11th Circuit Clerk to pirated an original one of my copyrighted works to promote a HLS research progeam and fund their legal defense) underway on the other Volokh thread: HERE.

You may likewise wish to know your last post contains material involving my ADA lawsuits it appears the posting participants admit was obtained from a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal clerk without authorization:

"squishy
Member
Posts: 1625
(5/18/04 1:47 pm)
Re: lol

I couldn't see the replies to the Wellington link. It will only show me the ad itself?

AnnTM, what do they tell you appellate circuit guys about confidentiality of records? I was wondering because I called on a 9th Cir. case to get the name of the attorney of record, and the clerk was all freaked out to give it to me, and told me that if anyone asked, I didn't learn it from him??! Isn't that public record, so what is the construction that apparently prohibits court employees from revealing public records? Just wonderin'. Congrats by the way on landing an appellate court job!"
Source

You also apparently think I should be impressed to know you get your rocks off by joining in the mockery, harassment, and a number of defamatory statements directed toward myself and husband by numerous posters on Chronicle of the Horse and ezboard Discussion blog by ridiculing the exact result of my autism language-communication deficits (inability to handwrite or keyboard) when NOT provided the electronic voice recognition assistive technology access the 11th Circuit Clerk to the Federal Court of Appeal Judge reviewing the pending Title II ADA litigation you cite ADMITTED I rely upon and require for effective communication and meaningful Access to the Courts—or any other conversation:

"Towanda
Member
Posts: 1121
(5/19/04 8:47 am)
Re: God ... I wish I was the mouse in the corner

…I think she just comes and goes in this bizarre little pattern, depedning on how leaky her boat is. Interferes with the internet connection, doncha know.

FWIW, I totally disagree that she is lucid, intelligent and knows exactly what she is doing. ANyone who read her e-mail to me will most likely concur. She rambles incoherently with little grammatical or sentence structure and makes empty threats that undermine (even more!) her credibility. If she were so smart, she would find a more persuasive way to push her agenda, IMHO.

AnnTM
Member
Posts: 141
(5/19/04 11:29 am)
Re: Ugh

Galloper, I thought she couldn't write? I thought that's why she needed double-time for a scribe to write it for her, or fancy voice-activated dictation equipment? …."
Source

Moreover, just because your latest post demonstrates you have not remotely done a reasonably diligent investigation before mocking me due to my autism and other disabilities because I require voice-recognition assistive technology (no different than astrophysicist Hawkings) to effectively communicate, I should also mention, Chronicle of the Horse is not yet off the hook from litigation over demands it remedy what occurred on their Bulletin Board blog that is continuing, particularly given that their administrator Erin hopped to the ezboard blog to continue participating in the broad-based blog-hopping mockery, harassment, and defamatory statements: e.g. HERE You may wish to exercise more prudence to refrain from interfering with my ADA litigation.

Finally, it appears your chief complaint against me is the fact that although Harvard Law School is one of the finest, HLS is now faced with the embarassment Harvard Law School failed to adequately screen and supervise one of its law review editors whom HLS allowed to participate in a joint HLS-DOJ Counterterrorism research experiment to prevent her from inflicting injury and harm on myself and my husband due to her own admitted mental illness "unhealthy obsession" that should have disqualified her for the security clearances she received and likely for her bar admission in two states (and I wonder if she even disclosed in her Bar applications in both of those states a copy of the blog posts wherein she admitted to having the clinical mental "obsession").

"AnnTM
Member
Posts: 130
(5/18/04 1:55 pm)
Re: lol

...But they never said anything about having an unhealthy obsession with a litigant I encounter on an internet BB.
Source

Perhaps, NickM, you would have added some constructive criticism if you had raised the issue in light of Harvard Law School's revamping of its 1L curriculum whether Harvard should have gone further and eliminated these standardized mental linear thinking memory-defect mnemonic tests like the LSAT and most Bar Examinations that (as demonstrated by "AnnTM"'s own above-cited admission) cannot effectively serve as a screening device to determine those who can meet the actual essential functions of the practice of law despite having autism vs. those who have "unhealthy obsession" mental illnesses that should have be scrutinized before being accorded numerous elite privileges and opportunities.

The proof of the pudding is in the fact what I stated about the ADA was eminently reasonable:

"elizabeth2
Member
Posts: 518
(5/12/04 10:04 pm)
Title III?

I give. Title VII, I know. Title IX, I know.

But Title III? I give.

I guess I'll go look it up, unless someone here can post a summary. . . .

Edited to add: I looked it up, and 'title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181). . .prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and requires places of public accommodation and commercial facilities to be designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards established by this part.'"

I learn something new every day. Go figure.
Edited by: elizabeth2 at: 5/12/04 10:06 pm"
Source

"OneonOne
Member
Posts: 1551
(5/13/04 7:50 pm)
Re: re:

My boyfriend has an internship for the summer with the planning department in a neighboring city. When I got home today, he was working on a map that he's making. He's coding the sidewalks and intersections for ADA compliance. How timely!"
Source

Whereas, the reaction of the malicious posters who participated with "AnnTM" to my merely raising the ADA was not:

"AnnTM
Member
Posts: 108
(5/13/04 9:32 am)
Re:

I have free Westlaw, so I will check...

*running off to log on to Westlaw*

OK, there are about 10,600 if you search in all federal databases. If you search in just federal appellate courts and above, there are about 3350. So yes, I suppose she could have read 5000 ADA cases. Sad, but true.

So, the write-on competition for the law journals when I was a first year law student involved Title III of the ADA, the Casey Martin v. PGA case that has been referenced on TOB. We had to research and write our memos prior to the Supreme Court decision, and we had to predict how the case would come out. I did not agree with the majority of the Court. I thought Martin should walk the golf course, or not play in PGA tournaments. Guess that means me and CP don't see eye to eye, huh?
Edited by: AnnTM at: 5/13/04 9:34 am"
Source

"QuietlyIrish
Member
Posts: 48
(5/12/04 5:56 pm)
Re: Re:

Blaackie, if you have a boob disability, what the hell do I have? Maybe a nonboobular disorder?

And I concur with your new rule on posting private e-mails.
- Formerly Frankiedaman -"
Source

"petitcheval
Member
Posts: 217
(5/13/04 1:08 pm)
Re: Re:

I can't get past QI"S "nonboobular disorder". I have that too...as well as the inability to do math. Does that qualify me for ADA?

I really must go to the HJ bb more often—I love it when Static lets me know that there is a crisis over there, so I go to witness the impending trainwreck.

I don't think I even want to read Tow's email from her—-too complicated and it will just piss me off.

You know? I am 42, I'm stiff and sore from having fucked up my back twice. I was never very athletic in some ways...that's life. Just because I don't have the stamina to climb Mt Everest, should they make special escalators to get me to the top? What if I were just obese like the 545 lb behomoth that was on ET the other night? She couldn't get out of her wheel chair she was so fat, but she is considered "disabled"...do we make special exceptions for HER to be able to walk to the base of El Capitan in a national park because she wants to see it?

I am not knocking ADa rules, but where does one draw the line? ... we are an equestrian sport, we have horses as teammates. So, at what point does the horse get dispensation for injuries? Gee , my horse can't canter because of some hindend issue...can I get some special thing to let me show first level dressage and skip the part we can't do because of my horse's disability?

Sorry to ramble—I jsut had all these random, bizarre thoughts running thru my head. You know? I smoked a lot of dope too, maybe the loss of braincells I have now (in addition to the nonboobular disorder) will help me qualify for something other than just being stupid now.
Bush/Cheney 2004-"Less CIA....more CYA"
Source

"This Is MAD
Member
Posts: 160
(5/13/04 5:43 pm)
Re: re:

Quote:

Red rover, red rover, Let the ADA come over!

NO! Because then she will have a legit claim for being mentally disabled after this BB is done with her!"
Source
11.27.2007 2:31pm
NickM (mail) (www):
Your problem is not the result of your autism. Your problem (and BTW, there are very effective voice recognition software programs that you can use for pleadings and other filed documents that require no court involvement or accommodations whatsoever) is that you are obnoxious, extremely egotistical, have far less reading comprehension than you think you do, overbearing, and have a husband who is an enabler of your unpleasant persoality traits. In short, you're an a**hole.

Oh, and if you think my pointing this out to you and others on a blog comment thread is interfering with your ADA litigation, just understand that if you sue me, I will go after you for bringing a SLAPP suit and for malicious prosecution, and I will levy on your horse(s) to collect on my judgment.

Nick
11.27.2007 6:08pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"Oh, and if you think my pointing this out to you and others on a blog comment thread is interfering with your ADA litigation, just understand that if you sue me, I will go after you for bringing a SLAPP suit and for malicious prosecution, and I will levy on your horse(s) to collect on my judgment."

A threat.

"you are obnoxious, extremely egotistical, have far less reading comprehension than you think you do, overbearing" = autism, a disability of language-communication and social interaction. But, you have proven yourself far more unpleasant than myself. And quite impulsive, I might add. LOL

"Your problem (and BTW, there are very effective voice recognition software programs that you can use for pleadings and other filed documents that require no court involvement or accommodations whatsoever)..."

Wrong. The assistive technology is used in electronic format, and I require electronic format to be able to see to read; thus, it requires a Court to provide the infrustructure of paperless electronic format access to electronic filing and communications. Also to CART real-time transcription services accessible to the voice-recognition in electronic format.

"and have a husband who is an enabler of your unpleasant persoality traits."

Your impulsiveness also shows thru your typing error, and now I know by your own ADMISSION you must have stalked my husband to make such a statement since you have not encountered him on this blog for which he is not registered as a blog poster -- so WHERE exactly have you encountered my husband?
11.27.2007 11:27pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
NickM, I just read my husband your post, and my husband just told me your statement about him is highly defamatory and damaging to his reputation, he suggests you get a capital "V" for vexatious (improper purpose), and he wants to know your real true identity, Bar #, and State of licensure. He would be happy to discuss this directly.
11.27.2007 11:34pm