The Legal Underground

Types of Lawyers #17: The Associate Who Finally Gets a Chance to Meet the Senior Partner

You knew him only as “the senior partner,” so you were honored, but also a little nervous, when you were asked to accompany him to a client’s deposition.  You were surprised to have been asked so soon. After all, you’d only been at the firm for three months, and everything you knew about depositions you’d read in books.

You knew the senior partner would be “defending” the deposition—that is, not asking the questions himself, but objecting when the other lawyer asked his questions. From reading books, you knew that before depositions, lawyers are supposed to “woodshed” their clients by telling them what and what not to say.  The very good lawyers never did this explicitly, of course, both to avoid problems of ethics and of poor form.  Instead, the good lawyers cloaked their woodshedding in a haze of ambiguity. 

“If you’re asked something like this,” they might say, “I think the correct answer is probably something like this.” 

When you showed up for the pre-deposition meeting a little early, it was the woodshedding that you were thinking about. While waiting for the senior partner to arrive, you engaged in some uncomfortable small talk with the client about baseball and TV. 

Finally, the senior partner arrived. The woodshedding was not exactly what you’d expected. It took precisely five seconds and went something like this:  “Sorry I’m late. You’re going to do fine.  Let’s go.”

Three years of legal education, and it’s clear that you don’t know the first thing about practicing law! You make a quick note about proper pre-meeting technique and sit down at the deposition in a corner of the room, where you wait for the senior partner to display the qualities that made him great.

And that’s when you get a big surprise. As the deposition begins, you see the senior partner pull something out of his briefcase—not documents you recognize from the case, not pleadings or discovery answers but . . . a stack of bills!  After that, the senior partner produces a checkbook and begins  . . . paying his bills!

What about the lawyering? What about the objecting? The senior partner doesn’t make any objections. In fact, he looks up from his bills only once, to tell the deponent—your firm’s client—to “answer the counsel’s question.  Please.”

It’s quite a shock. Quite a shock indeed.

[Below the Fold: Related posts]

Oh Yeah, It's Over for Law Review

 by the Anonymous Editor of Blawg Review

Just as weblogs have had a huge impact on mainstream media, bringing down rather pompous network news anchors and discredited journalists from fake news agencies, law blogs are providing critical analyses of topical legal issues that are changing how we look at Law Review.

What the hell is law review, anyway? Let's start with the basics. Law reviews are academic legal journals that publish articles by law professors, judges, lawyers and even law students. If you think that sounds boring, you are so right. Check out this sampling of recently published articles: "Textualism and the Equity of the Statute" (Columbia Law Review), "The Legal and Institutional Preconditions for Strong Securities Markets" (UCLA Law Review) and "Preventing Insider Misappropriation of Not-for-Profit Health Care Provider Assets: A Federal Tax Law Prescription" (Washington Law Review). Just imagine the soporific torment of those poor souls who actually had to read those articles. Grab a cup of coffee to wake up and we'll continue... Why do I care? Law review is important because working on one will help you land that job where they throw buckets of cash at you every week. "You gain skills through law review (and through every journal) that employers like for you to have," said Morgan [co-editor-in-chief of the Berkeley Women's Law Journal and member of the California Law Review]. "You learn editing skills, how to support a legal argument, actual legal research and writing skills. It also shows a commitment to something rigorous that demands a lot of your time. Employers are impressed by that." In other words, employers assume that if you were willing to spend hundreds of hours hunched over piles of footnotes, you will be even more willing to spend thousands of hours hunched over piles of documents when someone is actually paying you for it.

While making big bucks at BigLaw was once the highest career objective of aspiring law students, the Internet has changed all that. Anonymous Lawyer bloggers, who might not even be lawyers yet, can get a book deal from blogging. Law Professors, who used to write law review articles, are rebelling against traditonal Law Review attitude problems with copyright protection and are insisting on reserving some rights under creative commons licenses afforded them by blogs. And at least one activist judge is eschewing Law Review, too, preferring the freedom of the blog to the oversight of law review editors. In his recent article in Legal Affairs, the magazine at the intersection of law and life, Judge Posner excoriates Law Review noting, inter alia:

I have spoken thus far of the law reviews as publishers of scholarly articles submitted to them. But in addition, of course, they publish articles (usually and misleadingly called "notes" or "comments") written by the members of a law review's staff. The opportunity to publish provides valuable experience. This, plus the rising quality of law students, may explain the enormous increase in the number of law reviews—law schools that used to have just one now often have two and sometimes three or four. My only criticism of the student-written portions of the law reviews is that the students have a propensity to write about "hot" subjects, like partial-birth abortion, gay marriage, and capital punishment, to the neglect of equally important commercial subjects that cry out for informed doctrinal analysis.

They'd all really rather be blogging. So, the time has come to announce Blawg Review, the next big thing in blogging for lawyers, law professors, judges who blog, and law students who'd rather make a name for themselves than make law review. How can everyone get involved?

• Submit great posts from your own law blog for publication on Blawg Review, which is hosted on a different blog every Monday.
• Host an upcoming issue of Blawg Review on your own incredible law blog. Evan Schaeffer is hosting "Blawg Review #1" on Notes from the (Legal) Underground on April 11th. Kevin Heller is hosting "Blawg Review #3" at Tech Law Advisor, and others have already signed on for subsequent issues. Reserve a date for your blawg review, now!
• Write a review of a blawg for publication on Blawg Review. Maybe someone will review yours.
• Add a link to Blawg Review on your blog and spread the word throughout the blogosphere, especially when your own fantastic posts are reviewed for all to see.

Life is a carnival; take a second look at Carnival of the Vanities, Carnival of the Capitalists, and Grand Rounds where the medical profession up and joins the circus every week. Where's the law bloggers' carnival? Let's show the blogosphere what's really happening at the intersection of law and life these days—and who the heck are these interesting legal professionals who blawg.

Guest Writers Welcome

Stay tuned for the regularly-scheduled Wednesday guest post, which is up next. In the meantime, if you would like to be a Wednesday guest writer, please send me an e-mail. The rules are here. I'd be happy to give you feedback on your posting ideas or to provide a list of topics, specially-tailored to your own interests.

All previous posts by guest writers are stored permanently in the "guests" category.

Goodbye Johnnie Cochran

From Yahoo News: "Superstar Lawyer Johnnie Cochran Dies," by Linda Deutsch--

Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., who became a legal superstar after helping clear O.J. Simpson during a sensational murder trial in which he uttered the famous quote "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit," died Tuesday.

He was 67. Cochran died of a brain tumor at his home in Los Angeles, his family said.

Back in September, I posted this news about Johnnie Cochran: "Johnnie Cochran Is Recovering From Brain Surgery, According to the New York Post." Today, a commenter note, "Most news articles say that Johnnie died of an inoperable brain tumor. Did he have a biopsy at Cedars-Sinai or an operation? What kind of brain tumor did he have?"

The answer is that I don't know. But the news is unfortunate; all indications were that Cochran was going to recover.

My thoughts go out to the lawyers and staff at Cochran 's offices around the country, some of whom have corresponded with me during the past year about my many posts about Cochran. I teased incessantly; they were always the best of sports.

UPDATE:  Ted Frank of Overlawyered.com writes about Cochran here.

[Below the Fold: Related posts]

The Low Culture Guide to Jury Duty: They Need It in California

In California, juries get no respect. They can listen to all the evidence, deliberate with the best of intentions, and still be accused of being "incredibly stupid" if they don't reach the result the prosecution wanted.

It's why California jurors are well advised to read Low Culture's "Guide to Jury Duty," which contains a number of helpful tips like these:

[M]ake sure you've drunk something—preferably a strong, alcoholic beverage—before the proceedings begin. It will lend a festive air to the entire affair, which is good, since you will probably want to kill yourself the moment you arrive 'till several weeks later when the details of the case will come back to you in nightmares. (But in your nightmare, the killer will be your dad: Don't ask us, we're not shrinks.)

Don't bring a book or a magazine unless you want your fellow jurors to think of you as some sort of snob. Furthermore, displaying the ability to read will lead directly to the court officers not selecting you for trial. Best to show up with a lot of photos of your cats or your grandchildren, the better to facilitate conversations with those around you. If you must bring a book, bring a Bible: Everyone loves talking about the Bible with strangers.

Thanks #15

Thanks to the following weblogs and websites that have added permanent links to Notes from the (Legal) Underground since Thanks #14.

• Atlanta Injury Blog
• The Legal Ethics Blog
• Winding Road in Urban Area
• Legal Ease
• Disabled Worker Law Blog
• Juniorbird.com
• Law School
• Obsessive Law Student
• Death in the Afternoon
• Sound Evidence
• A Public Defender
• Outside the Whale
• A Girl Walks into a (Bar) Exam
• Angry Pregnant Lawyer
• Tahirah
• Expressio Unius
• InternetCases.com
• After Hours
• Whole Milk
• BlawgCast.com

In the Magazines

You know what I'd be doing if I wasn't spending all my time on this silly weblog? Reading magazines, of course--but only the free ones.

Why Is American Airlines Raising Ticket Prices? Because inflation is back. [Time]

Ad Links in News Stories? Forbes changes its mind. [Columbia Journalism Review]

A Judge Surrounded by Armed Guards What life's like lately for Judge Greer. [The Village Voice]

Doubling Down How World Poker Tour is responding to copycats. [Business Week]

Doctors and Money What they make has little to do with how good they are. [The New Yorker]

Law-Related Things That Suck: State Court Judges

What do the Class Action Reform Act and the Terry Schiavo case have in common? The answer's in the podcast. You can hear it by clicking on the link to the MP3. If you want to get the Legal Underground Podcast to show up on your MP3 player automatically, subscribe to this RSS feed using iPodder or a similar product.

The Non-Establishment Route to Success in Law School

In a comment to this post from a few months ago, Mike Cernovich of Crime & Federalism suggested that law review, moot court, and other law-school extracurricular activities might be a waste of time:

Law schools only teach students the "establishment" route. I knew when I decided to be a lawyer (when I was 19, after reading With Justice for None) that I did not want to take the establishment route.

Unfortunately, NONE of my professors could give advice outside the usual get in the top 10%, do law review, summer at BigLaw, then clerk, then go back to BigLaw. Excepting that they would (sometimes) know about DOJ or a prosecutor's office.

I think that most students probably have to make a very tough choice: Devote your time to taking the establishment route, or learn how to be a lawyer. For example, I did not do law review, moot court, trial team or any other extracurricular activity because I was too busy representing real clients and solving legal problems.

When I took the establishment route, I did it largely because that's what the big firms expected. I don't regret it, though, because I was lucky enough to work after law school for a large defense firm that provided good training for young lawyers. But Mike's anti-establishment route, which involved attending CLEs as a law student and offering to work for lawyers for free, certainly has its merits, especially for one who plans to start out as a solo.

I wonder if anyone besides Mike has tried anti-establishment approach?

The Monday Morning Books Blogging Post

This Week: Humbert Humbert, Sam Lipsyte, Female Writers, and More

More Interesting Than Contemporary Literary Fiction? A list of the "new-new journalists." [The Millions]

Humbert Humbert, Übermensch To safeguard his father's reputation, a lesser Nabakov takes on the author of Nabokov the Nietzschean. [The Moscow Times] (link from Moby Lives)

Sam Lipsyte, Literary Superstar The author of Home Land is nominated for Nerve.com's "Henry Miller Award" for this month's best sex scene. [Bookninja]

Female Writers Are Dull An opinion that's created a firestorm. [Maud Newton]

The Asti Spumante Code A spoof of The Da Vinci Code will be published on April 14. [The Independent Online] (link from Conversational Reading)