Anonymous Coffeemaker

I've been reading a new blog lately called BabyBarista, which blogger BabyBarista describes as "a fictional account of a pupil barrister undergoing the trials of pupillage at the English Bar." I lived in the UK for a time, and I love it. I heartily recommend it.

BabyBarista's blog is quintessentially British, in a very modern way: eloquently verbose, cutting, witty in the extreme. In the short time it's been online it has garnered significant readership. I see it as a UK counterpart to Jeremy Blachman's US-based Anonymous Lawyer. Like Anonymous Lawyer, BabyBarista's blog is populated by characters with clever nickames such as "Teflon" and "Worrier," so perhaps this similarity is intentional. However, it should be noted that BabyBarista's nicknames are characteristically British in their understatement--in stark contrast to Anonymous Lawyer's wonderfully blunt nicknames like "the Jerk," "the Bombshell," and the ever-classic "Young Guy Badly Hiding Your Impending Baldness." Should we be looking for a novel soon?

US readers should pay particular attention to the fact that BabyBarista's fictional challenges and travails are quite literally the same as those faced by lawyers on this side of the pond: billing by the hour, poor mentoring, working with abnormal people, intolerance and impatience, burnout, lack of idealism, etc. Perhaps it's comforting, since misery loves company. Then again, perhaps not.

Libel and Slander

On Thursday, March 1, the law students at my law school held their annual "Libel Show." It was open season on 1L profs, including me. There was a skit called "Bowman's Bad Day," in which very brave (or foolish) 1L Leon Cameron channeled me giving a Contracts lecture. Clearly, next year's videographic team needs to get the camera and mike closer to the stage; much of what you hear is the sound of rowdy law students in the audience. But the gist of the skit is this: a self-important professor (where'd that come from, I wonder?) is teaching class hopped up on caffeine (got that one right), and he uses the purchase of a cup of coffee as an example of contract law in action (another bullseye). Of course, the barista gets the order wrong, and the prof goes ballistic.

OK, so I do wave my arms around a lot. And Mr. Cameron did an excellent job of imitating my speech patterns (sans curse words, of course). But here's the part that really struck me: how'd he know that I love cinammon? The coffee gag involves me ordering a cup of joe without any flavoring, and the barista puts cinammon in the coffee, and I go nuts. Now that's spooky. Did I mention my cinammon addiction in class? Or was this pure chance?

I suppose, perhaps, that it's like multiple choice exams: it's nice to know the answer, but once in a while you can get just as many points by being lucky.

Final question: if slander is defined as defamatory statements made in a fixed medium, and libel is defined as defamatory statements in a non-fixed representation (i.e., oral), then why is this show not called the Slander Show? Although I suppose that recording and posting the video on YouTube is slander.

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.