Statute of Frogs

It is still true that the vast majority of search engine hits here are for searches related to the PA Bar Exam or that wretched MBE they put us all through.  Recently, however, someone got here searching for “3 sided frog” for which I’m proud to say I’m the third result.  I’m at a loss, however, to figure out what the person searching for “3 sided frog” was actually looking for, though.  I’m pretty sure it wasn’t my blog.  So if you’re still out there, 3 sided frog person, drop me a line and let me know.

One of the things I have to do on a more or less daily basis is decode letters from pro se litigants.  At best, there’s some difficulty trying to shoehorn the request into a legal category we can actually deal with.  (Is that a habeas request or a motion to amend sentence?)  At worst, there are serious grammatical and handwriting issues that add an additional layer of complexity.  (I also got one this week in Spanish.  With photographs attached.)
It seems, however, that grammatical problems aren’t limited to pro se litigants.  After all, this guy appears to be looking for legal work.  At least his letter wasn’t handwritten.

I’m less skeptical than Evan Schaeffer about The Robing Room, a new site that allows pretty much anyone to rate federal trial judges on a variety of criteria.  Certainly we’ll have to see if the site takes hold and the useful ratings predominate over the ones that are just vindictive (or put up by the judge’s clerks).  But it seems to me like an idea that could be really useful.

One of the things that has become extremely clear in the first two weeks of my clerkship is the degree to which most lawyers don’t tailor their arguments to their audience enough.  Last week, I watched an AUSA continue to hammer away at an argument that the judge had made absolutely clear he had no interest in.  That can only have hurt her case.  It seems like, if it goes well (and if one takes everything there with a grain of salt), The Robing Room could become a useful resource for lawyers, particularly those practicing in an unfamiliar court.

K over at divine angst has this post advising potential students not to go to law school if they don’t want to be attorneys.  There are a few comments pointing out other reasons people might go to law school.  I think I would shade k’s advice differently.  Nearly all law schools are set up to get their graduates into firm jobs.  There are lots of reasons to go to law school (I’ve heard several investment bankers and corporate executives say that a JD is better preparation than an MBA), but if you’re not planning to join a firm, you won’t have the job search resources available to you that the “standard track” students have.

I think it’s probably no different for the people who are planning to go into government or public interest jobs.  At most schools, that means doing all your own legwork for a job search.  People looking for firm jobs get spoiled when lots of potential employers come to us during OCI, but it’s certainly not the only way.

I’d shade k’s advice this way:  if you don’t want to practice at a firm, pick your school carefully and start planning your job search early.  Don’t let the relative lack of preparation for a job search that OCI allows lull you into a false sense of security.

I don’t really know where I’ll be in 20 years.  I might be practicing law and I might not.  But I have no regrets about quitting my computer job to go to law school.  I feel much more prepared to go in whatever direction seems right than I did before I went.  I went to law school because I’d become pigeonholed in my consulting job and I didn’t want to end up there again.  I think there’s no more flexible professional or graduate degree than a JD.