Mid-Semester Doldrums

Law School is a marathon, not a sprint.  I can't even begin to fathom how many times I have said this to fellow students, parents, incoming 1Ls...  Everyone comes out the door super intense, briefing every case assigned, looking up extra cases, reading up on procedural issues that aren't relevant to the course.

Then, at the beginning of October, we tend to see midterms.  Everyone pulls it together to learn enough material to do well on their exams.  Socializing gets put on hold for a little longer in order to save your grades.

But what about now?  In my experience, this is the time when people start to drift off.  Midterms are done.  Finals are still far enough in the distance not to worry.  That magic "Thanksgiving Break" deadline for outlining hasn't hit yet.

On top of that, football is heating up, baseball playoffs are going on, and hockey season begins.  College teams are in full swing.  People take advantage of the last of the warm weather.  The social distractions begin to mount.

And even inside the law school, now tends to be when internships get busy to make up for lost time during midterms, and the next round of applications goes out for jobs and internships next semester.  It is time to pick classes for next semester.  Moot court tryouts are starting soon.

With all these non-academic distractions, what is a student to do?  I guess get up early, go to the library, and keep your nose to the grindstone.  I feel like these times are the ones that separate the good students from the great.  It is easy to sit and study all day when everyone else at school is too.  But perhaps what is more important is how you are able to manage your time when everyone around you is goofing off.  Something can be said, in my opinion, for the steady success as opposed to the flashes of brilliance.

Here's to another few months of cases, highlighters, and coffee, my fellow stalwarts!

Law Zombies?

The ABA sends me regular emails with headlines (plus I follow them on Twitter) and while a lot of the articles are doom and gloom about the job markets, every now and then something catches my eye.

This one, about Yale Law's admissions process, gives a few interesting tips for law applicants.  While I have some critical thoughts about both Yale's undergraduate and law admissions process, I think it is good to know that they are looking for more than just a simple resume with all the right key-words.

My favorite two are the second two, the trivial obstacles and the childhood arguer.  The "trivial hardships essay" is also well covered in Ann Levine's Law School Admissions Game book (find my review here).  Both make the point that bemoaning an obstacle that either is common or less serious makes you seem like either you are lazy or a whiner.  However, the definitions vary.  In high school, I was told that writing about the death of a loved one probably wasn't a good idea, since a lot of people lose important friends and family members growing up.  Interestingly, this Yale Law admissions dean lists "divorce" as a significant obstacle.  I find this an odd choice, but perhaps I am being insensitive.  It just strikes me as one of those setbacks, such as moving, that is heartbreaking and incredibly difficult to manage, but also one that isn't unique for growing Americans.

I also loved the "I love to argue" one.  I can't tell you how many times people I meet in law school say, "Ever since I was young people told me I should be a lawyer because I love to argue!"  To be fair, my best friend told me I should be a lawyer in 5th grade.  But I don't think the fact that I felt like staging a protest in my English class about discriminatory Polish jokes makes me fit to be a lawyer OR for law school.  What makes me fit for law school is hard work, prior academic success, drive, and a wide variety of balanced interests.  In my opinion, the people who simply "love to argue" don't do well in law school.  You need to be able to listen to others, think about their position, learn the ins and outs of their position, and then construct a valid counter-argument.  Simply going back and forth does nothing.  Also, you need to be able to work well with others.  We have small group discussions at least once a week in class, and often with people you don't know.  I think a lot of law school involves actually being completely silent and listening.  You very rarely open your mouth.

My biggest complaints with Yale Undergrad and Yale Law's application process is that so much of it is either secret or simply different from the rest of the country, seemingly just because "We are Yale, and we can make you do it, because you need us, and we don't need you."  Having said that, I think it is awesome that Yale looks deep into applications, and doesn't (at least seemingly) reduce people to LSAT scores and undergrad GPAs.  This is a cool article for applicants.

10 Things I Have Learned About Legal Interviews

Having now been on a few legal interviews, I think I am completely qualified to give a full amount of feedback and tips.

Here are 10 things you should know about legal interviews:

1) They aren't all that different from regular job interviews.

I actually had to do MORE for two job interviews prior to attending law school.  The biggest difference is that those involved tests and practical demonstrations, while legal interviews are conversations.  Also, those involved multiple interviewers, and so far my legal interviews have all been one on one.

2) A legal interviewer knows A LOT about you before you walk into the room.

Legal interviewers already have a resume and a transcript, and they probably have a writing sample and cover letter as well.  This means they have up to 4 pieces of paper before they meet you.  In addition, law school transcripts say a lot more than an undergrad one, since the course and curricula are pretty similar across schools.  There are only two law schools in Maryland as it is, so chances are your interviewer took the same course from the same professor.  And in the writing sample the interviewer has an example of work product, not just grades.

3) A legal interview can easily be over before you open your mouth.

Piggy-backing on the last one, while your paperwork might get you in the door, that might be all it gets you.  The legal community is huge on etiquette.  Showing up late means you probably aren't getting the job.  Dressing inappropriately also means you probably aren't getting the position.  I've heard anecdotes about women getting points against them for expensive designer purses, and guys losing out for missing a spot while shaving that morning.  The optimist says this all goes to attention to detail, the pessimist says the market is bad enough to support sometimes arbitrary distinctions.

4) The legal interviewer may know NOTHING about you.

I know, number 2 says the opposite!  Some legal interviewers are too busy to read your resume.  They may have not read your writing sample.  They may have not read your transcript.  You need to be prepared to work this into the interview.  If you have a great internship listed, but the interviewer doesn't ask you about it or read your resume, you need to let them know.

5) You aren't going to be asked about grades.

I haven't had any "Big Law" interviews yet, but I haven't been asked about grades at any of my interviews.  I haven't been asked about the good ones, the bad ones, or the average ones.  I would assume that if you are interviewing at a Big Law type firm that only takes top 10%, your grades are already qualified enough anyways.

6) Be prepared to talk.

I've found legal interviewers to have far less questions than traditional job interviews.  They tend to ask very broad, open ended questions.  You need to be able to not only keep up your end of the conversation, but keep it moving forward.  I have been asked simply, "Tell me about yourself" and felt totally lost.

7) Be prepared to shut your mouth.

Legal interviewers are lawyers.  They already did law school.  They now have jobs, and are successful.  You are a student who NEEDS their acceptance.  If you are in the middle of your awesome story about the time you saved the day for your last boss, and the interviewer makes a sound, you need to shut your mouth.  This sounds obvious, but sometimes you get so caught up in trying to share everything about yourself, it can be hard to stop.

8) Have copies of all your paperwork, AND A BUSINESS CARD.

The first thing they ask for is your card.  Its a terrible way to start off an interview.  Print one on your computer if you have to.  Also, some of them may not have copies of your resume or transcript available, so have at least two clean copies of each.  Its great to be able to hand them one if they need one, and its good to have your own copy to reference, just in case.

9) You need to do research.

At a bare minimum, you had better at least google the firm you are interviewing for.  I would suggest, at a minimum, reading up on the type of work they do, any major cases or victories, and schools they attended (if the firm is small enough).  First of all, its great to let them know you are interested, and not just looking for ANY job.  Second, its great to have talking points or common ground to discuss.  And finally, everyone likes their ego stroked at least a little, and knowing about someone's work is a great start.

10) Have a question for the interviewer.

I was told to do this for work interviews after graduating from my undergrad university.  And none of those interviewers seemed to really care.  However, all of my legal interviewers have asked if I had any questions, and taken the time to answer.  I got the idea that they really wanted me to ask something, and weren't just asking as a formality.

Well there you have it.  If anyone has any good sites with more info, or wants to share their own stories, feel free to leave a comment.

Moot Court Update

I feel like all I ever write about anymore is Moot Court...

My coach/advisor/master of all things legal and written hailed the team to his office for a review of the practice brief.  It started off well enough, with the comment "I was surprised, I didn't think you guys would be able to write at all."

Moving on from that, he explained that this is because you don't get very many opportunities to practice and perfect good legal writing in law school.  And this is entirely true.  As Coach pointed out, even when you do have writing assignments, they are always framed in the panic that is exams, classes, internships, and life.  Therefore, you often don't get a chance to do that really deep, high level, word by word editing that you would with a work assignment.  Also, the first few assignments are overwhelmed by learning a new system for citations, analysis, style, even pagination, that make it difficult to really refine your skills.

So, low expectations, well exceeded.  Not so much an insult as a statement of fact.

However, he then proceeded to utterly destroy our beautiful little brief.  In some major, major ways.  Things like point headings, completely missing the standard of review, and a failing to apply the legal test we painstakingly described.

Two major points in our defense:  First of all, this was a closed universe problem, and we simply didn't have access to cases that supported certain legal elements that were lacking in the brief.  You can't discuss legal presumptions if none of the cases you have to cite to do either.  Secondly, our coach is an awesome writer.  Although his resume includes time at nationally prestigious firms and work on Supreme Court cases, I really had no idea just how good he was at appellate writing.  I was blown away as he slowly and calmly pointed out the narrowest distinctions in the technical aspects while weaving in subtle but beautiful style points.

I am really nerding out right now, but it is somewhat inspirational to get to sit and learn from a master.  I have been carrying around a brief he wrote while in practice, treating it like an idol.  Seriously, I checked my bag every five minutes to make sure it was ok, but ended up leaving my jacket on the train.

Be Gone, You!

Well, the practice brief is finally done.  It was a ton of work, I haven't even thought about totaling up the hours invested in it.  We sent it off a few hours before the final deadline, and so far all the interested parties seem to have received it, and are more or less satisfied.

Actually, we will be scheduling an appointment with the team coach shortly.  He will be sure to let us know how well we did (or didn't) do.

Speaking of writing, I have an interview for an unpaid internship coming up shortly.  It is a research assistant type position.  I am pretty excited about the possibility of the topic, it is really an area that I think I could see myself doing some serious work in the future.  The real point of this story, though, is that it required my creating a writing sample.

Writing samples are just what they sound like, a sample of your writing!  The idea is that, as has been discussed here ad inifitum, legal writing is a different beast from other types.  Therefore, prospective employers like to get an idea that you know how to do it before they hire you.  This is especially true for a lot of internships, where you will primarily be tasked with looking up an obscure legal topic, and then trying to convey the whole law in a few pages to a busy partner who doesn't have the time to really learn it themselves.

My first year of law school, I did five writing assignments.  The first was a closed memo for my first year writing course.  This, unfortunately, would never work.  While my legal analysis was actually pretty decent, the paper itself was a bit of a mess.  Half of this is my fault for really doing awful, but a lot of it was simply because 1Ls don't know any better.

The second was an open memo for the same class.  This one has potential as a writing sample, except I never got a graded copy back from my professor, since we handed it in at the end of the semester.

The other major paper was a lengthy appellate brief I did for the second half of my first year writing course.  This one was out because of the same half and half rule from earlier.  On the one hand, I could have done a bit better of a job with the second element.  On the other hand, I don't think even the professor fully understood the second element or how we were supposed to approach it in light of the assignment.

So that leaves two other possibilities, my Moot Court brief and my law review write-on.  Well, the law review one, while not bad, was never scored.  So basically, that left Moot Court brief.  This was from the competition to get on a time during the winter last year.  The good part about this is 1) it was some pretty tight legal writing, 2) it was the ideal 6 pages and 3) it was already pretty heavily edited by yours truly.  So I decided to put it in blue book format (yeah, we used a modified style guide for the competition) and send it off.

No lie, I spent a solid 8 hours cleaning up the six pages.  It wasn't all bad, I have just really grown as a writer from last year.  I found so many improvements to make, and I am proud of the final output.  But when potential jobs are on the line, wow, do you look at everything a little more closely.  I suppose this is good, it means that whenever I am actually in practice, I have a very deep place I can go to get the best product out there.  But when it is a Friday and you really just want to have some fun, it is not fun at all.

Moot Court - Practice Brief Continued

Whoa... this thing is killer.  The good news? Almost done.  Hours and hours of work, but nonetheless, its almost complete!

It is, of course, one of those things that feels awesome when it comes together!

In other news, I blogged a little while ago about being on a focus group for the new UB website.  Well, today the school sent around this, if anyone is interested.

Finally, I have applied for a research position which I am pretty excited about, but apparently there was enough interest to warrant an interview...  So wish me luck!

Moot Court - Practice Brief

Why the lack of updates, you ask?  It's the Moot Court practice brief.  My life has been utterly and completely consumed by this.

Those of you who have followed this blog may have heard me rant and rave about legal writing, and how it is a completely different beast.  Those of you who are either in law school, or have previously attended, know exactly what I am talking about.  Those of you who are in neither category, let me just sum it up by saying legal writing is the slowest, most deliberate, and careful writing you will ever do.  I know, I know, everyone always says what they are doing is the worst.  This is not the case.  I will concede practical tests to nursing programs, I will concede exams to medical school, but legal writing is tough.

That doesn't mean it can't be completely exhilarating when you put something together.  When the arguments start coming together in your head, when you begin to see a brief or memo take form, it is awesome.

Writing a memo with someone else is whole 'nother story.  First of all, everyone has a "writing process."  Mine involves procrastinating, so having a partner actually helps.  I absolutely cannot be unprepared when someone is counting on me.  So that is good.  Plus, the research is easier, as you both read the cases, and even if I miss something, chances are MCP (that's Moot Court Teammate) will catch it.  And when you sit down and start looking at the problem, you get to bounce ideas off each other.

For example, ours is a 4th Amendment issue, that is, search and seizure.  We both read the cases, and the problem.  I thought we should take the approach of arguing how the suspect's actions justified a more thorough search.  She thought we should take the approach of arguing the government's strong interest.  It turns out, we need to do both.

So that is all great, but writing with someone else? That is difficult.  We came up with a decent outline, then sat next to each other, and said "Ok, what should the next sentence be?" We each dictated one, then worked out which was best.  "Ok, next sentence." We each dictated one, then combined them.  Needless to say, we worked for about 7 hours, and wrote 4 pages.  And I thought it was pretty productive.

Now tomorrow, we have to write the last 4.  Then we get to edit.

Side note: With Moot Court this week, for the first time in my life do I understand what other people mean when they say loved ones complain about them never having time.  So far in my life I have always been able to balance the two, but Moot has recently made this near impossible.  So to my loved ones, all I can say is sorry, and thank you for your patience.  I'll be back soon.