Tuesday, October 31, 2006

The More You Know

I am more likely to read 30 pages of a 30 page reading assignment than 30 pages of an 80 page reading assignment.

Friday, October 27, 2006

It Begins

From Corporate Crime Reporter:

"The preferred career trajectory of a young white collar defense attorney is fairly straightforward – graduate from a top notch law school, clerk for a federal judge, work at the U.S. Attorney’s office, preferably in Manhattan, or at the SEC’s enforcement division, for a number of years bringing cases against major American corporations and executives, and then go to work for one of the major corporate law firms defending the culprits – for a lifetime of financial security."

I guess that makes me fairly unoriginal.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006


5:25 p.m.
Dear Hiring Partner at Big New York Law Firm,
I very much enjoyed meeting you and getting to know more about your firm. While I also appreciate the opportunity to come in and meet more people, I am in a position now where I am better able to decide what firm seems right for me and have decided to summer elsewhere.
All my best,

5:45 p.m.


Thanks for your note. (I particularly like the use of the word "summer" as a verb although it's much nicer when followed by a destination, like Nantucket or the Cape) In any event, we wish you all the best and hope that our paths cross in the future.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Spam. Mmmmm.

Hi Milton, hope I hit your correct email adress.
I was going to mention about these incredible opportunities
for future prosperity.There is a company out here
known as American Unity Investments Inc (AUNI).
This one as you can see is climbing, but by just looking at it
I can tell it's gonna explode.So you do have a window to digg in
while it's still in it's low.I got a few shares of mine and made
5K. So what a hey, go ahead and do the same make some money while
it's there.

I hope it was a helper.I'll email you later this week.


Does anybody actually fall for this crap? Even worse, does anybody with spare capital to invest fall for such a terribly written pump-and-dump scheme? "Adress?" "Digg?" "So what a hey?" Either this was written by a fourth grader or America now outsources even its garbage e-mail.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

You Don't Say?

Food for thought from today's Political Process class.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Per Curiam: A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.

(...332 words later...)

Per Curiam: Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work.
Justice Stevens (dissenting): Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Justice Ginsburg (dissenting): In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.

Justice Breyer (dissenting): The majority's reasoning would seem to invalidate any state provision for a manual recount of individual counties in a statewide election.

Clouds. Rain. Drizzle. Drivel.

I have few pet peeves.

Talking about the weather with complete strangers is one of them.

I hate it. Worse than the awkward silence in an elevator is the stranger's obnoxious urge to fill it with blather about today's barometric conditions. Pretend you are checking your voicemail. Stare. Even clear your throat for God's sake. Unless you're Al Roker, I really don't care about your entirely obvious assessment. It's shallow, devoid of the slightest bit of substance, and not even remotely related to a topic of conversation we might have chosen had we anything useful or expressive to communicate to one another. And this is coming from someone who likes to chat.

Disagree with that? Then, you're also disagreeing (at least in part) with the reasoning of the law. It's why these mindnumbing exchanges are not subject to the hearsay exclusion in the Federal Rules of Evidence.

"[I]t becomes plausible to view some verbal expressions as nonassertive in some senses: Perhaps one instance is words that are reflexive, hence more like physical reaction than expression of conscious mental impression. Another candidate is words that embody conventional social pleasantries, since they often have little if any factual content are in that sense "meaningless."' (Evidence, Mueller & Kirkpatrick; Nonassertive Behavior - Verbal Expressions).

So, it should be acknowledged that I make no positive claim nor commit myself to any viewpoint or action when I say that it sure is cold and cloudy in New Haven today.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Laces Out

Anyone else ever notice this...

Ronald Camp: Who is he, a friend?
Melissa Robinson: No, this is my date. He's a lawyer.
Ronald Camp: Well, does he have a name, or should I call him "lawyer?"
Melissa Robinson: No, this is Ace...um, Tom Ace.
Ace Ventura: Tom Ace. Pleasure to meet you. I was just telling Melissa that one of the first things we learned back at Stanford Law was the modern proliferation of food poisoning claims against wealthy homeowners. In fact, if one were so inclined, one could make quite a lucrative law practice on little else. How is everyone feeling tonight?
Ronald Camp: [nervously] Very well, thank you.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Right This Way

Girlfriend and I walked into Babbo yesterday -- a Saturday night at 8 p.m. No reservations. No calling ahead. Just strolled by Batali's crib, asked the maitre d' if there was a chance of being seated, and (instead of being laughed at) was immediately accommodated.

Then, the Chairman from Iron Chef America walked in with his party, checked in with the host, and was kept waiting (literally) beside our table for his to open up for close to thirty minutes.

I can't wait to live in the city.

Monday, October 09, 2006

Change of Colors

I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country. And that I have to stand here in tightly fitting Stanford apparel.

- Nathan Hale, Yale Class of 1773.
yalie05/stanford08: sls2L, what did u do to my yale statute?
yalie05/stanford08: all in stanford gear?
yalie05/stanford08: haha
yalie05/stanford08: i feel such divided things--first shock and horror but then pride!

Friday, October 06, 2006

Phase Two

Excluding work-study and camp counseling, I have not engaged in any productive market behavior. I am invisible. A claimed dependent on someone else's tax return. But, that's all about to change.

The past two weeks of interviews drilled that reality in. I'm not against it - no, in fact, very much for it. However, I just feel disingenuous talking about my ideal career path during these exchanges. I come straight through from college, have one summer of practical legal experience under my belt, and - all of a sudden - I'm talking about structured finance, IP litigation, and securities fraud like I really have a clue about what they're like up close. So, I've been very honest about that. I'm pretty much still open to anything.

Anyway, making things seem even more forced is that I am apparently supposed to know which firm it is that I want to do this "exciting and cutting edge" work that I have never done. But, this is the ritual. It's ceremonialized among law students and firms these days.

A typical exchange might look something like this:

Law Firm Partner: So, what is it about our firm that you find attractive?
Law Student: The reputation of (insert firm) in (insert practice area) speaks for itself. The ability to get substantively involved early on in my career is very appealing to me and I think the international emphasis of your firm has perfectly positioned it for where I think the law is trending.

So, having had variants of that conversation fifteen times, it's time to move on. Next up this month are "callbacks."

The last time I had a callback was when I was auditioning for a part in my Junior High School's production of Fiddler On The Roof.

With that in mind, here are the shows that I'm trying out for later this month. The role in all of them will be the same: summer associate.

1. Sk@dden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP
2. Cle@ry, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP
3. Debev0ise & Plimpton LLP
4. Simps0n Thacher & Bartlett LLP
5. SuIIivan & Cromwell LLP
6. P@ul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
7. Lath@m & Watkins LLP

It's kind of funny how only two years ago that was gibberish. I've been doing what homework I can. But, at this point, I feel like it is ultimately going to come down to the vibe and gut feeling I'm hoping to get when I'm in their halls and surrounded by their people. Until then...

SuIIivan & Cromwell sounds the most Irish and Cle@ry Gottlieb sounds the most Jewish.

Monday, October 02, 2006

We'll Be In Touch (Even If You Don't Interview)

Wachtell (wok-tel, n.) - A law firm apparently so prestigiously exclusive they turn down even those who choose to not interview.
SLS2L: anybody get wachtell callbacks?

Argyle Blue Devil: i am sure someone did
Argyle Blue Devil: i cancelled my interview

SLS2L: a feature that i am not entitled to here

Argyle Blue Devil: yeh
Argyle Blue Devil: but then wachtell sent me letter saying it was nice meeting me but they could not offer me a callback

SLS2L: classy

Argyle Blue Devil: i want to call the guy and inform him that he did not meet with me
Argyle Blue Devil: and that if he would have, he most certainly would be offering me a callback

SLS2L: hahahahaha

Argyle Blue Devil: because i am, despite my average grades, that money