Rule 12(f): [prints off 1 copy of 40+ page brief]Previously:
Disgruntled student, possibly a 1L: Is this all yours? I'm waiting to print something -
Rule 12(f): Yep, all mine!
Disgruntled student, possibly a 1L: [sigh]
Rule 12(f): Man, if you're upset now, wait until you see what happens next . . .
Rule 12(f): [prints off 7 more copies of 40+ page brief]
Unfortunately, this girl was better at it than I was.
Even more unfortunately, some townie threw the frisbee underneath this dumpster. We were unable to move it . . .
. . . probably because all of our strength was drained from arm-wrestling
USA! USA! USA! 
All signs point to yes. There's an interesting thread at the Volokh Conspiracy where current clerks are discussing the applications that they have received. Consensus: it's not a good year to be applying for clerkships.As a clerk for a federal judge, and the first one in our chambers to sort through and catalog the applications, I've noticed that we've received literally double the number of applications received two or three years ago. (In fact, I might be looking at your application right now, Mr(s). hopeful applicant.) The same is true for most of the other chambers. Moreover, the number of "top-tier" and "bottom-tier" applicants have both increased, as has the number of applications with firm experience.And
It's brutal. From what I understand, 2/3 of the judges in one of the more prestigious appellate circuits had already completed their hiring by the time the official hiring plan started. I'm at a top school and one of the top students here - law review, externships, etc. - didn't even get an interview there. I lined up mine this summer (so I suppose I was part of the problem, from the perspective of those conforming to the rules) hiring plan be damned.And
Current COA clerk in a "flyover" but nonetheless desirable circuit. The credentials of the people who interviewed this year (and those who we ultimately hired) were nothing short of absurd. Other than applicants from HYS, we didnt interview anyone who wasn't top 3-4% at a T14. Several had secondary degrees as well (MAs, PHDs, etc). I was top 10% or so at a lower-end T10 with journal managing board, moot court, strong summer work experience, and a previous D.Ct. clerkship, and I am certain I wouldn't have even been interviewed this year. What a difference a year makes.
This isn't new news, but it was reiterated in an electronic mail sent to students earlier this morning.Paper Deadline: All fall papers are due no later than 5:00 p.m. Thursday, December 17, unless the instructor/supervisor imposes and an earlier deadline. One-time exception: Spring/fall 2009 yearlong independent research papers are due no later than 5:00 p.m. January 18, 2010. Students who submit late papers will receive F grades. If requested in advance, deadline extensions can be granted with good cause. See section V., pages 27-28, of the online Academic Policies for details.
Man, what? For those who are unaware, students were often (but not always) allowed all of winter break to finish their papers. The putative rationale: it's unfair to require a student to write a 30-40 page paper, which is ostensibly supposed to be something approaching publishable quality, while they're trying to study for three or even four other exams. (Here's something I have found to be incontrovertible: you *will* spend more time writing that 30-40 page paper for three credits than you will studying for that three credit exam).
We took a class last year where the Professor required the paper to be due at the end of the finals period. Yea, it was nice to get it done . . . but it was an unpleasant two weeks (and our performance on finals suffered).
So what's the point of this new regulation? Is it to help Professors return grades more quickly? Or just a clever scheme to help students multitask better. Anyway, students take heed, if you're at all concerned about this, the best thing to do is to put of your paper until you are a 3L, when those pesky things like "exams" and "grades" won't mean much anymore.
Read more.$1000 1 BR in 3 BR ASAP! @@LOOK@@ (SoHo)
Date: 2009-09-22, 6:59PM EDT
Reply to: hous-zneuf-1387578642@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
No credit cheak, no broker fee! Rent straight from me!
This apartment is located in SoHo in a 100+ year old building. The building is falling apart and may get condemned any day now, but eyyy, it is rent subsidized by the NYC government.
I pay about $450 per month for the apartment because it is rent subsidized, and make money off my roommates by subletting their rooms to them for $1k each. You don’t like it? I don’t care. Because I’m not really supposed to be doing this and it is against my lease agreement, you’ll need to pay me everything in cash. No checks, etc. Also, no mail to the apartment.
We have a washer and dryer in the place, but sometimes it eats your clothes. Oh, and I'll use your detergent sometimes. Try and hide it in your room? I'll find it! But hey, you can use my cheap brand when I get around to buying some.
To move in it is first month’s rent and a one month deposit. So, $2k total. We’ll split the utilities and cable three ways. I always leave the lights, TVs and AC units on when I'm asleep and/or out of the apartment. But, hey, it is split 3 ways so I don't care. Sometimes I forget to pay for a few months, but I want the money from you each month anyway. If the cable or power gets cut off, I may need for you to charge it to your credit card and I’ll take it out of your next month’s rent. Eyy, I can live with no cable and electric, but you can’t. Right?
* How the hell did UVA Law not win the douche competition?
Hrmm, that's an interesting question - I'm sure the members of the moot court board, who are all listed in the site linked to in the article, whose names were linked/posted in the comments, and can be found easily, enjoy being singled out as "douches", though. Certainly, it's important to link serious and legitimate concerns about a questionable policy with ad hominem attacks combined with stereotypes about the Law School that single out the people who follow and attempt to enforce this (long-standing) rule.
* This letter reeks of no offered 3Ls who are trying to find an excuse for why their sterling resumes — replete with moot court credentials — didn’t make the cut.The policy is a long-standing one; that the board threatened to actually contact employers may or may not be a new, but we can say with absolute certainty that the current moot court board did not invent the rule at issue.
Of course, speculating about their employment credentials is highly germane. But since we're already doing so: for our part, we have enough faith in humanity and our classmates to believe that you wouldn't go out of your way to hurt someone's job prospects just because you're unhappy with your own. But then again, our moral compass may be screwed up, going to a "douchey" law school and all.
* Do they really expect 2Ls to call up perhaps a double digit number of firms and say “hi, can I send a new resume? My old one was correct at the time, but my circumstances have changed in a minor way and now I’m afraid jackasses I go to school with will use this to sabotage my application.” The horse is out of the barn and galloping away on this one.
Is there any need to actually call - why not use email? Here's a simple method, which I think should satisfy everyone involved:
(1) Write your current / perspective employer saying that you have an updated resume;It seems like step (1) could be done with a mass email to all of the firms at which you still have applications pending. Subject: "Rule 12(f) Updated Resume, September 2009". It'd probably take about 15 minutes.
(2) Attach a copy of your resume with moot court taken off and whatever else changed;
(3) ???;
(4) profit.
* Where in God’s name does the Lile Moot Court Board get the idea to become the resume police? Isn’t that the job of employers, not wanna-be employees?
I agree with this. As I said before, I believe that the policy is a good one, but part of the honor code means that the students are supposed to abide by it. If it's not enough to say "don't put moot court on your resume unless you actually did it," then it's not enough, and our beloved (or "douchey", depending on your views) system of an honor code is for naught. But I think - in light of some anectodal evidence and gut instinct - that most people do follow the policy. We know some people who did, voluntarily, contact their employers for not dropping moot court (or their journal for that matter). Again, it wasn't really a big deal . . . We also know people who didn't put moot court on their resume to avoid this problem, but ended up doing it anyway (again - the first round is not that bad!!)
So, to side with ATL on this one: I think that was a silly thing to say or even threaten, the honor code means that you don't treat people like babies, and that you don't threaten to do check up on someone's compliance with the honor code. (For those who don't know, this is the same reason that we are allowed to take unproctored exams, sometimes where-ever we want: the school doesn't monitor our compliance there, and moot court shouldn't here).
* Did the Lile Moot Court Board think, for a second, about the consequences of looking like mean spirited asshats in front of the entire UVA Law community?
As of today, this sentence should read "Did the Lile Moot Court Board think, for a second, about the consequences of looking like mean spirited asshats in front of the entire legal community?" Did the Above the Law editorial board consider that it looks somewhat mean-spirited itself by linking to a website with these guys' names on it and calling implying that they are douches?
Seriously guys, I know the job market is tough and competitive. But threatening your fellow students is just not the right way to go. People who put moot court on their resumes without actually participating in the competition will look really silly if an interviewer ever asks them a question about it. That is the “spot check.”
FFJ came across this gem: t14blog.com. As you may have guessed from the title, it's a group of students - all 1Ls - at four top 14 Law Schools. All, as near as I can tell, are anonymous (but for how long? - we believe that you should stand by what you write, but that's another story . . .), and all of them seem to be very chipper about the prospect of law school so far. The four schools represented are Columbia, Chicago, Cornell (whose blogger uses the pseudonym "Ivy Life"; I'll let you all have fun with that one), and of course, Virginia ("Southerly Wind"). From Southerly Wind's most recent entry:One important development has been the fact that I actually am really liking legal research. I had no idea how different it would be from all of the research I’d done for projects in the past – I assumed it would involve looking up cases, but the immense organizational structure that has been produced for the purpose of conducting legal research is staggering. And I’m not going to lie, I had a blast running around the library trying to find the right cases and statutes for our first memo. Even the process of writing the memo was refreshing compared to the more open ended projects I was used to in college. I’ll admit it – at least at this stage in the game, I kind of enjoy legal research and writing, whatever that says about me personally.
If there’s a ‘this economy’ cloud hanging over the school it has yet to touch the 1Ls. And the weekly keg was flowing today, softball is starting soon, and life is in general looking good – so far. We’ll see what week 2 brings
That is more than can be said for the second- and third-years, at least by our watch. Other than that, we welcome this "Southerly Wind" to the UVA Law blog community. When I leave this place to go coach high school football in upstate New York, you may get to be top dawg...money in the bank my friend, money in the bank (kidding).
It's . . . legal to detain someone if you believe he's going to harm himself or others. If Merriman can prove that he was concerned Tequila would get behind the wheel while drunk, he might have a case. The method of restraint, however, has to be "reasonable." Taking away someone's keys and locking the car doors is reasonable; punching and choking someone, as Tequila alleges Merriman did, is not. Who determines what's "reasonable" behavior? If the answer is obvious, a judge makes the call; otherwise, a jury does.
Hi all,We're going to borrow an IM bat and wait in the parking lot; if we see something we'll go all bear-Jew on the perp. J/K, but seriously, don't break into our car (or bike, in my case).
Within the last few nights there have been a series of thefts at The Park during Intramural events. In at least two cases, windows were broken out of vehicles and valuables inside were taken.
The UVa Police run frequent patrols in the area, and ask that while you should not approach a suspicious individual, you report any suspicious activity to the police immediately.
In addition, you may consider removing valuable items from your vehicle before coming to your game, or walking/riding the bus.
Please let me know if you have any questions,
Erik Jaeke
Assistant Director of Intramural Sports
University of Virginia
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
If you get a callback, you'll be leaving CHO on one of these. Wooo.
So, alright - all the buzz on UVA Law Blog has been about how tuition has been going up. There's not much we or anyone else can do about that - short of reigning in unnecessary costs, of course. Usually, we let others - like our friends at Above the Law - discuss the other piece of the puzzle: rise - and now fall - of salaries.Some big law firms are cutting annual pay for new associates from $160,000 to $145,000, but the cuts need to go deeper, according to a law firm consultant.
Writing at Cotterman on Compensation, one of the consulting firm’s principals, Jim Cotterman, says pay is still out of line, and it should drop to $125,000 or even $100,000.
Lawyer compensation will take a hit in other areas too, Cotterman predicts. He says signing bonuses are likely to be cut, benefits reduced and bonuses made more difficult to attain.
The impetus for the changes will be client demands, he says. “Services will be competitively bid, outsourced, offshored, converged, internalized, re-engineered, and even forgone." Add alternative fee arrangements into the mix, he says, which transfer risk to law firms. "All of this will bring the major line item in any law firm—the cost of people—under assault. This will affect total employment, wage scales and job expectations.”
Clerkship apps go LIVE today! Unless you're one of those people we've been "whining" about who already has a clerkship, of course. Good luck everyone; we hear clerking is just like being in law school minus the kegs, softball, feb club, and foxfields . . .
1. Legalize Drugs(1) Import college age women desperate for a Permanent Visa to the United States.Not bad, huh? We get college educated women who want to be in this country and put some dollars in Uncle Sam’s wallet. We all have a price and we all want to have sex – why not use it to decrease the national deficit?
(2) Set them to work as state prostitutes. Since this is the US, we’ll do it nice and classy. Just like in the Netherlands, give the women bouncers and require weekly STD tests.
(3) Tax.
(4) Require the women to attend college and learn English.
(5) Upon the completion of a college degree, give the women Permanent Visas.
1. Kids cost money and sometimes the parents can’t pay that money. Our welfare net is embarrassing relative to the rest of the civilized world, but we still have one. Get some deadbeats out of the “children market” and government won’t have to foot the bill.I’ve made a non-exclusive list of what I’ll call Parenthood Disqualifying Characteristics. Feel free to add some more in the comments.
2. Kids take on the personality traits of their parents, either through genes or learned behavior. Some people are morally deficient, violent, and/or or self-destructive. Get psychos out of the “children market” and government won’t have to foot the bill.
1. Violent felony convictionA caveat: Due process takes a long time and may make these procedures more costly in the long run. I suggest writing these laws like criminal forfeiture statutes, as in, they occur as part of sentencing with the judge as fact finder (and abuse of discretion review).
2. Hate crime conviction
3. War crime conviction
4. Multiple bankruptcies
5. Profound or severe mental retardation
6. Debilitating and lengthy addiction to illegal or prescription drugs
There’s your list, UVA Law Blog readers. Can we fix our great country without morality? YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!
Previously:
Fixing the US Sans Morality, Part I
From Cynthia Burns, UVA Law Director of Financial Aid:
This email provides important information regarding the delay of the refunding of excess financial aid resources by Student Financial Services. The Law School Financial Aid Office has been monitoring this situation and recognizes that this delay has created some anxiety as many of you are awaiting these resources to cover current living expenses.
Our understanding of the situation is that the delay is a result of the new loan processing system required by the new Student Information System to transfer funds from the student loan lenders to the University and then to students. The problems are the result of some set up issues that were not discovered prior to the start of the disbursement process. Student Financial Services, however, is working fervently to correct these errors and restore the flow of resources to students. I anticipate that most of you will receive your refunds within the next several weeks.
If you need resources prior to receiving your refund, the University has an emergency loan program available to all students. Law students are eligible to receive one $750 Lee Loan each semester. This is an interest free loan that can serve as a cash advance of your expected refund. To obtain a Lee Loan, you must apply in person at Student Financial Services in Carruthers Hall, located on Emmet Street across from the Barracks Road Shopping Center. You will need to present your Student ID Card at the Cavalier Central Counter to receive the loan.
I encourage any student experiencing extreme financial hardship resulting from the delay in your financial aid disbursement to contact the Law School Financial Aid Office.
Thanks for your patience.
I'm one of those who hasn't gotten his money yet and I'm finding this to be a major pain. It's not so much about the interest free loan to the University (on a non-trivial amount), but the fact that many expenses come due at the beginning of the semester. That is, in addition to rent and food, I have to shell out for books, a parking pass, health insurance, and in my particular case, furniture. In sum, poor form UVA.
Scheduling a cupcake match and then losing. Good lord, UVA, at least give us something to cheer for. * removes Al Groh poster from wall *.The times they are a-changin’.
Current third-years entered the Law School at a time when the economy was healthy and the largest law firms were benefiting from the steady demand for legal services that comes with a robust financial market. As first-years in the fall of 2007, the Class of 2010 received advice from their Peer Advisors that boiled down to a general mantra: UVA law students can get jobs at large law firms, so long as they can tie their shoelaces.
Mr. Clayton, you did great work this summer, and everybody really likes you, but . . .
Since that time, however, the current third-year class has witnessed a seachange in the legal market—a change that has radically altered both the class’ experiences and its expectations for entering the market as young attorneys.
The major problem for third-years —even for those students able to secure a summer internship at a large law firm—is the internship did not lead to an offer of full-time employment as they had expected. Instead they find themselves thrust back into the worst job market in recent generations, competing not only with other third-years in the same position but also with almost the entire second-year class to secure another job . . .
We recently ended the great experiment popularly called Cash for Clunkers. For those of you unfamiliar with the process, below are the basic provisions.1. You own an old piece of crap car that gets bad gas mileage.Evidently the program has had some success – automobile salvage workers and Asian car manufacturers have especially benefited. I briefly considered the program, but decided against it for the basic reasons below.
2. You want a new car that gets good gas mileage.
3. A couple thousand dollar subsidy by Uncle Sam will prompt you to make that new car purchase.
1. My old piece of crap car that gets bad gas mileage runs just fine.Anyway, I’ve been thinking of other ways to use the tremendous power of the federal government to tax and spend on behalf of THE PUBLIC GOOD. In the first installment of a two-part post, I’ll spin out some ways that the federal government can stimulate the economy, mostly in the same vein as Cash for Clunkers. In other words, prompt people to buy stuff or do things that have a positive impact on the national gross national product. In the second installment of this post, I’ll give some ways that the federal government can make itself money to close our national deficit. (I know, crazy thought that Chinese banks will one day refuse to keep buying our debt, but consider this a thought experiment).
2. I don’t want a new car.
3. Even with a government subsidy, you still are taking on many thousands of dollars in consumer debt. (Many > couple).
