Weekly Roundup--Feb. 28, 2007

This week, my cutting edge, ad hoc survey of the blogosphere has uncovered the following gems.

A Jury of Their Subordinates. Law.com recently ran a piece on "upward reviews"--namely, associate reviews of partners. It's an interesting practice, and one that not enough law firms implement.

I have worked at firms that implemented upward reviews and firms that did not. At my first firm (Katten Muchin & Zavis--now KMZ Rosenman), the corporate department (of which I was a member) did upward reviews. There was a critical mass of associates to ensure that the reviews were anonymous. The reviews were candid and honest--sometimes brutally so. And therefore they were useful. But at my last firm (Baker & McKenzie), I never went through an upward review. The problem was not so much recalcitrant partners as it was that I worked in small departments. When you have three associates, there's no critical mass, and no anonymity. And that's too bad. Even when you have an excellent working relationship with someone, there are things you are reluctant to say in person, or that would be counter-productive if you did. Anonymous reviews can help remedy that.

More on Law School Curricular Reform. At the Law School Innovation blog, Gene Koo has a good post on skills education in law schools and why it is so important to emphasize this. Koo points out that firms and judges are increasingly trying to hire people with experience, instead of new grads. This is, of course, a way to avoid training costs.

It reminds me of when I was in high school and trying to get a job in fast food joints: each one wanted to know what experience I had in the fast food industry. And that meant I ended up getting my experience in a totally crappy pizza dive that used fake cheese. No joke. Fortunately, I worked my way up the chain (pun intended) to Pizza Hut.

Computers in the Classroom, Part XXVII. A post on CALIopolis suggests the "real" reason why law profs dislike computers in the classroom. The graphic says it all--absolutely classic and priceless, so definitely check it out. But I have to say from experience that what bugs me is not a student's laptop--it's the broad smile on a student's face while I am lecturing on something serious. Is there a disconnect there? Rhetorical question, of course.

Gluttons for Punishment. WSJ.com has a post about a forthcoming documentary on people taking the bar exam. I know the California bar exam is hard, but apparently one guy is taking it for the 42nd time. Ouch.

Law School "Family Day"

Last Friday, Mississippi College School of Law (MCSOL) held its first "Family Day." Law students could invite family members to attend a luncheon and a "mock class"--actually two mock classes of one half hour each. The idea, of course, was to give family members a flavor of what law school is like, and also show them what some of the law profs at MCSOL are like. I taught a mock Contracts class on specific performance, and my colleague Debbie Challener taught a Civ Pro class on federal question jurisdiction. It was a fun event, and a good number of the students' parents and kids attended. I hope the family members had half as much fun as I did.

What struck about the mock class was that it truly had the vibe and energy of a 1L class on the first day of school. It's now late February, and student burnout is setting in hard. My Contracts class meets in a windowless auditorium, and I wonder whether the lack of natural light subdues things--class participation is tapering off fast. On the other hand, my International Law class meets in a classroom with long banks of windows, and the students in that class all seem to be mentally gazing out the window, if not physically doing so. Can't win for losing.

I remember this period of time vividly from my own 1L year. Burnout in the 1L year is a nearly universal experience. I really, really started disliking nearly all of my classmates in February or March: despite the fact that they were nice people, I resented being cooped up in a classroom with them 15 hours a week.

So back to the Family Day mock class: there was a positive charge in the air. There's little in law school teaching that beats a classroom filled with eager, excited people who are ready to learn. And there it was. On top of the benefit for the families and the school, I found it recharged my teaching batteries. That was an unexpected and wonderful gift.

Finally...A Female Managing Partner!

I was sitting in Dairy Queen yesterday with my kids after a fun time at the swimming pool. I was pleased to find The Globe and Mail newspaper to read while the kids attacked the french fries.

I flipped to the "Law Pages" and found an interesting story about a female lawyer who works for a Toronto law firm called WeirFoulds LLP. I quote from the story:

"Last month, Ms. [Lisa] Borsook's career veered onto a path seldom travelled by other women in her profession. The real estate leasing specialist was elected managing partner of WeirFould's 80 lawyers and 120 staff, making her one of only a few female chiefs ever appointed at a major or mid-sized Canadian law firm."

Wow!

That's pretty big in my mind. I don't know too much about WeirFoulds LLP, although I am sure that many of you from out East know all about it. But, I think that they are very, very smart. I liked what the article said about the response from one of Lisa's partners: "She's just so damned good at what she does that I don't care what her sex is."

It's really too bad that such a comment is necessary, but as Ms. Borsook says, "The law is still a testosterone-fuelled profession." I hope that this move by WeirFoulds will help to change that. Its bound to happen. I noticed in my alumni package that came last week that the % of women at U of A law school is around 56%. It won't take long for a change in the equalibrium at law firms. Maybe not a year, but I can see a definite change within 20 years.

My partner and I often comment that we would like a female lawyer to join our firm, so as to balance things out a bit - provide a fresh and unique perspective.

There are probably some out there who will think that Weirfoulds and I are out to lunch. So be it. They shouldn't voice their opinions too loudly though. They may have a female managing partner to answer to one day...

Weekly Roundup--Feb. 19, 2007

This is my second installment of noteworthy posts or events of the week. Highly unscientific, but hopefully highly interesting.

More (and More) on Taking Law School Exams. There were some substantive posts in the past week on law school exams and how (and how not) to take them. I posted on this subject recently too (see Reflections on Law School Exams and More Information on Exams).

• In a recent post, Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy discusses in some detail what is (and is not) a good law school exam answer. He usefully illustrates his points with a little hypothetical--materials from a make-believe course, an exam question, and five sample exam answers. Make sure you check out the comments.

• Daniel Solove at Concurring Opinions also offers his take on law school exams.

Note the commonalities in the advice posted by Kerr, Solove, me, and other law profs out there. If a lot of people (grading the exams) tell you the same thing, there's probably something to it . . . .

Blogs in the Classroom. On his blog, Stephen Bainbridge has posted about the use of blogs in teaching. He's using a course-focused blog to great effect--making his slides, handouts, audio of his actual class lectures, and related materials available online for anyone who wants to access them. That is an excellent idea, and Bainbridge can hold his head high if anyone ever accuses him of being an academic because he does not want to work hard. (Which someone does in a comment on another recent post of his, in which Bainbridge compares law practitioner salaries to law prof salaries.) He really could get away with not posting these materials, and yet he does it anyway. Kudos.

So why don't all professors do this? There are probably as many reasons as there are law profs, but I do note that Bainbridge has been teaching for a while, which has given him time to hone his materials.

Most interesting to me is the excerpt Bainbridge quotes from an interview of Professor Jack Balkin (of the blog Balkinization) about blogs opening up possibilities for law students to hear the views of law profs at other schools far more easily than, say, just a few years ago. I see this as very beneficial for students (check out the comments to Bainbridge's post), and also perhaps as raising the bar of accountability for law profs. Both of which are good things.

Big Firm Salaries. At Concurring Opinions, Scott Moss points out in a recent post that despite the media frenzy over recent (and previous) big law firm pay hikes for associates, the average increase over the past decade has been only 6.5% annually. That's better than the national average, but not huge. But the headline "Associates get Modest Pay Raises" won't sell many papers.

As a former soldier in the big firm trenches, I can say that the associates generally earn these raises, too.

Blog of the Week. This honor goes to the HRHero blog That's What She Said, on which blogger and HR attorney Julie Elgar discusses legal issues raised by the US version of the TV show "The Office." Neat concept for a blog.

The Importance of Rest

Guess what the percetage of Type A personalities permeate law school and the legal career?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I would venture to say that it is a very high number. Most of my colleagues from law school were very high achievers. There were doctors (i.e. PhD), marketing specialists, entrepreneurs, writers, philosophers, etc. Beyond their professional credentials, many of them also went all out with volunteer activities, sports, fitness, hobbies, political interests, activism, partying and attempting to attract the opposite sex.

Most of them did everything 110% (I hate that cliche). Where many of them fell down, and will fall down is their inability to give the body some rest.

This topic is especially relevant for me, since we just had a baby. I had to remind myself that many men, and women, choose to take anywhere up to a year off from regular life to connect with their new child, and to adjust to a major, major life change.

It reminded me that it's OK to take the time necessary, to get the rest that I need, and to support my family. There's no better time than now to take care of these things. The practice will always be there. My children will not.

I wish I had taken more time for myself and my family during law school. I did take time, but I wish I had taken even more. I wish I had gone on more holidays. The few thousand dollars would have been a minimal part of my debt. I wish I had attended fewer classes and just gone for runs instead, or read good trashy novels. The end result for my career would have been the same, I think, but I would have been even happier.

Make good on my wishes, and do these things for yourself this week.

Law School and Having Children

On February 15, my wife and I welcomed a new baby boy into our family. Samuel Adam is our fourth child, and is a fantastic blessing to us! We are so pleased that he is healthy, seemingly happy and at home with us.

Our two older daughters (6 and 7) are enamoured with him, and are proving to be real helpers with Samuel. Our other son (2) is also very infatuated, and has adjusted well, although it has only been three days.

I know that a lot of you have children, or are planning on having children, and are wondering what it will be like once you hit law school, or once you hit your legal career.

I had two children for my first two years of law school, and our third was born in my third year. I remember being very worried about my schedule in my first year, and feeling guilty a lot when I was studying so hard, working part time, and trying to keep our household in order. But, things smoothed out after about 6 months. I started giving myself permission to take time off from law studies, and to make special time for my girls.

By the time my son was born, I had a very set routine and felt like I could afford to give as much time as necessary towards helping my wife with the new baby, and with my other children.

I heard about a man who was a few years ahead of my who had eight children when he started law school. I think that would be very heavy! A few of my friends had babies, or had wives who had babies while in law school. It worked out. Nobody blamed their babies for bad exams. I had one friend who had two babies while in law school. She shifted to a part-time schedule, and ended up doing really, really well.

Now that I am a lawyer, I have started to feel more guilty about time not spent with my children. But, because I am my own boss, I try to give myself permission to have time off whenever I think my children need more attention. I am going to take most of the next week off - I'll only go in to put out genuine fires - and will ease back to work over the following two weeks. One thing I have learned is that babies are only babies for a very short time.

One last thought - never put off having children for your career. It is never worth it to choose the latter before the former. In other words, work to live. Don't live to work.

More Information on Exams

In a recent post I set out some thoughts about final exams and what students do well (and not so well) when preparing for and taking them. (See Reflections on Law School Exams, 2/8/2007.) In addition to my two cents, Pitt's Jurist site has an excellent compendium of advice regarding law school final exams. It includes advice from a variety of law profs and other commentators. It's a list worth checking out.

Weekly Roundup--Feb. 13, 2007

This roundup is a first in a series of posts. The idea, as the name implies, is to give a quick rundown of interesting materials I have come across in the past week or so. Here goes.

Citing to Wikipedia. On Concurring Opinions, blogger Daniel Solove has a noteworthy piece called "When is it Appropriate to Cite to Wikipedia?" (Note to students: PLEASE READ!!) My favorite part is Brian Leiter's comment on the matter.

• Side note: For a link to Wikipedia's Brian Leiter page, click here.

News from the Trenches. The ABA Journal just published the results of an online survey of law firm associates (or at least of people who claimed to be law firm associates). Of nearly 2400 respondents, almost 85% said they would be willing to trade some of their high salaries for lower billable hours. Not surprising. Neither is the general response by partners: get back to work.

They Really Mean it--Get Back to Work. The ABA Journal also reports that salary wars in NYC continue, with first-year associate pay reaching $160,000 in January 2007. So clearly, all associates need to keep their billable hours up to pay for the raise. (Dipping into partner profits to pay for raises is strangely unpopular at big firms.) And as reported in LegalTimes.com, the pay raises are rippling out to other cities as well.

Biting the Hand. . . . New York Law School's Professor Cameron Stracher wrote a recent Op-Ed for WSJ.com, in which he discussed the need for greater clinical education in American law schools. Part of his solution? Clinical rotations like in medical school. Nice idea to consider--although I wonder how useful watching a bunch of corporate attorneys drafting documents would be. Come to think of it, when I have had medical procedures done at teaching hospitals, I have wondered how useful the whole process was to med students in the room. Although since I didn't get charged any extra and since no one got hurt, it was at worst useless, and at best a learning experience.

Watch for more roundups soon.

Improving Law Schools

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching is finalizing a report entitled Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law. The full report will be available in March 2007, but there is a very useful 16 page summary of the report available right now for free. It can be accessed here. Thanks to my colleague Jeff Jackson for bringing the report to my attention.

Previous posts and comments on Law Career Blog pertain to the strengths and shortcomings of American legal education. (See, e.g., Is the Third Year of Law School a Waste of Time and Money? and Is Law School Itself a Waste of Time?) The summary and pending full Carnegie report address this topic too, and the summary makes for very interesting reading. One thematic commonality that runs through it is that "[t]he dramatic results of the first year of law school's emphasis on well-honed skills of legal analysis should be matched by similarly strong skill in serving clients and a solid ethical grounding."

In other words, this study concluded that the first year of law school provides a solid doctrinal underpinning for students, who learn legal analysis--how to "think like a lawyer." This educational experience needs to be matched, however, by similar efforts in the second and third year to educate students not only about doctrine, but also about legal practice. By so doing, law schools could teach students more and prepare them better for the practice of law.

I've posted on the question of whether the third (and even second) year of law school is a waste of time (see the above links; my answer = no), and there has been some excellent commentary from readers on the subject. The Carnegie report suggests, and I tend to agree, that the problem is not that law school is not beneficial or should be shortened, but rather that upper level courses should focus on developing skills that complement the doctrinally-focused skills of the 1L curriculum.

This conclusion and recommendation speaks directly to the common practitioner complaint that new law school grads don't know anything about practicing law. I often think such complainers mean that law school's focus on doctrine is wrong--too much theory, too little skills training--but the Carnegie report does a nice job of emphasizing that you need both.

I encourage anyone interested in the subject to read the Carnegie report summary and post any comments you might have here.

Reflections on Law School Exams

I have had several readers ask for my post-exam thoughts about what students should and should not do on final exams. I have posted on this subject before, but since grades come out every semester it's worth writing about again. Hopefully I can shed some new light on the subject, at least from my perspective as a law exam grader. My previous posts on law school exams, by the way, are as follows.

• How Law School Professors Write Exams


• Last Minute Final Exam Advice


• How to Improve Your Law School Exam Grades


• More about Law School Grades


• Exam Grades and Curves

So what else can I say? The views I expressed in my previous posts really have not changed, but here are some supplemental thoughts.

1. Know Your Audience, and Remember the Purpose of an Exam. For law school exams, your audience is your professor--someone who knows the subject better than you, but who nonetheless wants you to demonstrate your knowledge of the subject. You are not talking down to your audience if you demonstrate on the exam that you know, say, the basics of manifestation of mutual assent. If you don't explain in summary fashion what the law is, you risk a lower score.

2. Corollary to #1: Law School Exams Grade Performance, not Just Knowledge. On a law school exam--at least an essay exam--you are presented with a fact pattern. Your task is to identify what doctrinal rules are relevant and then apply them. Knowing the law is necessary for a good grade (you can't apply the law if you don't understand it), but it is not sufficient.

3. Another Corollary to #1: To Perform Better on Exams, Take Some Practice Exams. Let's say you got a lower grade than you wanted. Does that mean you didn't know the law? No, it means you did not perform on that particular exam, most likely by not applying the law as well as you might have. For future exams, practice applying the law. Get together with class mates you trust, draft sample exam questions for each other, and practice answering them. It is my opinion that the process of creating your own sample exams can be a highly educational process, because it forces you to really think about how the various legal rules and principles interact. Also try looking on the web for sample exams--although the casebooks used and the topics covered by those other professors will affect the usefulness of those exams.

Note: For anyone in my current Contracts class, I will be handing out some sample exams later in the semester. But I encourage you to craft your own sample questions too.

4. Organize Your Exam Answers. I saw a lot of exam answers this year that were not well-organized. I sympathize entirely with the urge to simply start writing--after all, there's not much time in a three-hour exam. But if you don't (a) think through how you want to organize your answer (which means you need to outline your answer before you start writing), and then (b) follow that template, you are bound to miss issues or at least give short shrift to some issues.

Here's the point: on average, you will score higher on an exam if you hit all (or at least most) of the issues adequately--as opposed to really nailing some and missing or underexploring others. If you outline that does leave you less time to write, but that is MORE than offset by the fact that you will spend less time spinning your wheels or restating something you have already covered.

5. Corollary to #4: Exam Length is not Always Related to Exam Score. There are 3 general lengths of exam answers: short, medium, and long. That sounds all too obvious, but it's worth pointing out, in order to highlight the relationship between exam answer length and exam answer score.

In my experience, writing less than around 1700 words on a 3 hour essay exam means that you run significant risk of not having enough words to discuss and analyze difficult legal rules and principles. So there is a strong corellation between short answers and lower exam scores.

Medium answers are, in my experience, anything between 2000 and 2700 words. (I guess that means 1700-2000 is a gray zone.) A 2000 word answer can be competent, but in the "medium" category longer answers generally translate into better scores.

Interestingly, however, for long answers--generally those above 3000 words--there is a very weak correlation between word count and score. And this gets me back to my point about organization. A well organized answer can cover more ground in fewer words than a long (but poorly organized) answer.

This means that sacrificing some length at the alter of organization is a wise trade-off.

6. Another Corollary to #4: Organizing Your Answer Helps Demonstrate to the Professor That You Know What You are Doing. The ability to identify relevant issues and then discuss them in organized fashion is a necessary skill for the practice of law. That's what you do in memos to clients, and that's what you do in briefs or other submissions to a court. Whenever I read a well organized answer, the message I get is "this person knows what s/he is doing." In contrast, a disorganized answer that flails about makes it difficult or impossible for me to tell whether the person knew the law, or simply got portions of the exam right by accident--and the result is a lower grade.

7. Yet Another Corollary to #4: Write an introduction for your answer. I may differ from other law profs on this point, but I see very little downside to writing a very brief introductory paragraph for your essay exam answer. It takes about 5 minutes--and all you do is concisely state what the issues raised in the question are and what you will be discussing in your answer. And then you follow that format throughout your answer.

This is another way to demonstrate to the prof that you know what you are doing. It also makes the exam easier to read, because the prof knows what's coming later in the answer. It is always easier to read something--an essay, magazine article, memo, anything--if the author first gives a roadmap. So even if an introduction does not garner you any direct points, it helps the grader follow what you are doing, and that should at least indirectly improve your score. (It's also a way to force yourself to be organized in your answer.) And as I said, even if it does not help, it really does not hurt much, since it only takes a few minutes to write an introduction.

8. Do not Try to be Clever or Original. Points for style and eloquence are nice, but generally you are better off focusing on getting the substance of your answer down, instead of being overly concerned with phraseology. So eschew grandioloquent prose for simple, straightforward language.

Of course you will use use legal terminology (e.g., tortfeasor, party-in-breach, etc.) to demonstrate your knowledge (and ability to apply) the law. Just don't get flowery.

* * * *

Those are just some of my thoughts. Any comments?

Should Lawyers be called "Doctor"

I was on www.lawstudents.ca recently, and followed a thread on the question, "Should Lawyers be called 'Doctor'." I thought it was an amusing thread, with lots of witty posts. It got me thinking about the place of lawyers in Canadian society. I'll share a few of my thoughts.

First, lawyers are not doctors, in the classical sense of the word. Although they often help others, they are a different professional subset than doctors. By doctors, I mean both medical doctors and academic doctors.

To be a lawyer is to be a professional. It is to be an officer of the court, an attorney (A person to acts on behalf of another). In fact, in the US, most lawyers are called Attorney, which is a lot better than Lawyer, in my opinion. It is more descriptive of what a lawyer does. Lawyer says that you know something about the law. Attorney says that you know what to do with that law - you know how to serve.

Countering that thought is the fact that so many lawyers are very self-serving. Corporate lawyers come to mind immediately, along with Personal Injury lawyers. However, many doctors are quite self-serving as well. I read recently about the increasing number of doctors who are turning to plastic surgery rather than a general practice, because of the easy money. I see many doctors driving very fancy cars to very fancy houses. But, not all doctors, or lawyers, are like this.

I am amazed that someone who has graduated medical school is called "doctor" immediately, even though they have not practiced medicine for one moment. Law graduates in Canada have to take on the name "Student-at-law" for one year after graduation. Only when they pass bar admission requirements can they call themselves "Lawyer."

Some of the posts at www.lawstudents.ca argued that the academic requirements are similar for lawyers, compared to medical doctors or academic PhD's. On this point, I would have to concur. Law school, which usually follows a four-year undergraduate degree, is a long haul. The timeline is similar to the medical student. In some rare cases, you can achieve a PhD in 7 to 8 years of academia, but I think it is usually closer to 10 to 12 years before you can call yourself "doctor".

Lawyers hold a special status in Canadian society. They are often well respected, although often criticized and berated. There are many jokes about the shark-like quality of lawyers. But, at the same time, our citizens choose to elect lawyers as their leaders time and time again.

Myself, I don't really need a special title to do my work. It is enough to say that I am a lawyer. I didn't go to school to become a doctor. Perhaps one day, but that would be another career altogether.

I do want to exchange my LL.B. for a J.D., because others in Canada have that designation now for the same amount of education that I have received. Fair is fair. However, it should be clear to everyone, lawyer and non-lawyer alike, that a Juris Doctorate does not mean that you can call yourself "doctor" or that you can equate your degree to that of a medical doctor or a PhD. They are different paths, mean different things. It is OK to be different. It's not OK to say you are better than another who has dedicated their life to a career, or to a cause.

That's all I have to say on that for now.

You've Made it into Law School - Congratulations!

I have received numerous emails from readers of my book and my blogs (Law Eh? and Canadian Law School) recently. Many of you have sent me a note to update me on your success in being accepted into one of Canada's law schools.

CONGRATULATIONS to all of you. It's fantastic news! Law school is tough to get into. Canadian law schools are tough to get into. You have all worked so hard towards this dream, and now it is a reality!

I really appreciate the kind comments about how the book and the blogs have helped you to prepare - for the LSAT, the Application Process, 1L and beyond.

Many of you have been asking lots of anticipatory questions about law school, and even more questions about life after law school. Keep the questions coming, and if it's appropriate, I will post the answers on the blogs (with your permission, of course).

For those of you who have not had success so far this year, don't give up. Many law schools put out second and third calls once they start receiving rejections from students who have decided to go to law school elsewhere. Don't give up hope yet, Amigos.

And, if you don't get in this year, don't despair. Try again next year. Write the LSAT again. If you read my book, you'll read about my abysmal first attempt at the LSAT, and how I turned it all around. I didn't give up, and now I am partner in my own law firm. A short 5 years from deciding that I wanted to be a lawyer! And I'm loving it! Never give up.