Law School

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Oh, that's bizarre. My boyfriend uses this made up system of citation that I can't believe nobody has called him out for yet. If he is referring to a case, he'll write:

The court held in Roe that abortion should be legal.

but if he's citing to the case, he'll put:

As the Court held, the Constitution has "penumbras, formed by emanations." Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973).

Heh. I see lawyers with some regularity who underline and italicize:

"As the Court held, the Constitution has "penumbras, formed by emanations." Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)."

It drives me nuts. The whole thing is rather simple. Case names should always be italicized. Underlining is a typewriter convention to indicate text that would be italicized if possible. Italicizing is possible with a word processor, hence underlining is not needed as a substitute.

Of course, then there are the people who, for emphasis, will bold, italicize and underline. Because it's that important! LOL -- people who work with me know that I will never sign my name to a brief with any bolded text in it.

[Kevin]

The bluebook says that both underlining and italics are acceptable.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The bluebook says that both underlining and italics are acceptable.

Sure, it does, because they're the same thing. It also notes that "[t]raditionally, underscoring was simply a way of indicating to the printer text that should be italicized." (18th Ed. at 4) Underscoring (underlining) is a substitute for italics. Since wordprocessers can typeset, underlining is not needed as a substitute anymore.

As an aside, I have yet to practice in a court that sticks to Bluebook rules regarding citations.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Heh. I see lawyers with some regularity who underline and italicize:

"As the Court held, the Constitution has "penumbras, formed by emanations." Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)."

It drives me nuts. The whole thing is rather simple. Case names should always be italicized. Underlining is a typewriter convention to indicate text that would be italicized if possible. Italicizing is possible with a word processor, hence underlining is not needed as a substitute.

Of course, then there are the people who, for emphasis, will bold, italicize and underline. Because it's that important! LOL -- people who work with me know that I will never sign my name to a brief with any bolded text in it.

In one of the cases Mr. GP is doing right now, the state has traffic stop and custodial interrogation bolded every time they quote. I wonder if they copied and pasted from Westlaw.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

In one of the cases Mr. GP is doing right now, the state has traffic stop and custodial interrogation bolded every time they quote. I wonder if they copied and pasted from Westlaw.

My guess is yep. I've actually seen briefs filed that are in the Verdana font with citations italicized, underlined (hyperlinked) and in gray (I'm assuming they'd be blue with color prints) AND the *898 *272 page markers. Talk about lazy....

[skylark]

To all those out there that care about this sort of thing: I just read something on a favorite law-blog that the "new Screech" from the Saved by the Bell: the New Class series is going to be one of Justice O'Connor's new clerks. Totally random, but who would have guessed that a saturday morning kids show would produce such a potentially influential legal figure.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/s...at_12.php#more

[deadbear80]

Originally Posted by skylark

To all those out there that care about this sort of thing: I just read something on a favorite law-blog that the "new Screech" from the Saved by the Bell: the New Class series is going to be one of Justice Breyer's new clerks. Totally random, but who would have guessed that a saturday morning kids show would produce such a potentially influential legal figure.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/s...at_12.php#more

He's actually working for O'Connor based on the site you sent us too.

I mean, I know she's retired so she still gets a clerk--but I wouldn't want to work for a Justice whose opinions don't get published anymore.

Anyone else surprised that 90some% of the newly hired clerks are from the Harvard/Yale club?

We had 3 professors (and the Dean) at my law school who were all Supreme Court Clerks--2 went to Harvard (both clerked for Ginsburg), 1 went to UVA (He clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist), and the Dean went to Michigan (he clerked for O'Connor).

They are damn hard jobs to get though.

[skylark]

How weird. You know sometimes when you read something and you swear it said something it didn't? Yeah.

Sorry everyone -- Justice O'Connor is the winner of the Screech-clerk.

Still funny.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by skylark

How weird. You know sometimes when you read something and you swear it said something it didn't? Yeah.

Sorry everyone -- Justice O'Connor is the winner of the Screech-clerk.

Still funny.

I think it is a lot funnier because she's retired. I wonder if she has a Greenbag bobble head of herself in her chambers?

[adpiucf]

Any advice regarding 2L summer job search? We just got our OCI list, and I have had some success with off-campus recruitment events in getting interviews. Interview tips, etc?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by adpiucf

Any advice regarding 2L summer job search? We just got our OCI list, and I have had some success with off-campus recruitment events in getting interviews. Interview tips, etc?

I realize this post is a few weeks old, but I'm going through the summer search right now as well. Mine's a bit different...I've been working full-time as a law clerk since December (and been with the same company in different capacities since 2006) and am just trying to get back to Boston. If it doesn't work out through OCI/off campus, I'll probably try to do it through my current employer.

As far as hints; the best information I've received has been from people at my school. Since they worked at the firms this summer and last summer, they've been good resources as to what to expect in interviews, and what the firms are looking for in a successful candidate.

A lot of the OCI/off-campus recuiters in my school's program have been very specific in what they want to see in a candidate. They're pretty clear on the cut-off for class rank, and whether they require any journal or mock trial/moot court experience.

As far as the interviews; I've just been told to do my homework, get good background on the firm, and to be ready and discuss (intelligently) the particulars of each firm.

Other than that, I'm just trying to network with old contacts in the Boston legal community, and I've been refining my resume/cover letters/etc. Good luck with your job search!

[magichat]

So it starts in a few days, 1L that is. This summer flew, I am ready but still nervous as hell.

[unspokenone25]

Originally Posted by magichat

So it starts in a few days, 1L that is. This summer flew, I am ready but still nervous as hell.

You should be. Professors smell fear and attack like rabid dogs.


We all had to go through it. You'll be okay. Good luck.

[magichat]

Originally Posted by magichat

So it starts in a few days, 1L that is. This summer flew, I am ready but still nervous as hell.

Just to give a quick update...I am about two months in, and I have about two months left, its not as bad as I thought it would be, although I am doing alot alot of reading, unlike undergrad. I honestly like it alot, although I miss being in undergrad

sidenote: Did anyone go to law school where they went to undergrad? I am so glad I decided not to.

[skylark]

I've known for a while how hard the SCOTUS clerkship jobs were to get and that they went exclusively to top 5 law school grads. That was something that one of my professors told one of our 1L classes fairly early in my law school career. I think it was because there were some over-zealous gunners in class hinting that they thought they'd make excellent clerks for the supreme court. I did not go to one of the schools known for farming out SCOTUS clerks, so these gunners' dreams needed to be crushed, I think. I think it is sad because I'd sure love to see some more diversity of life experience in the people behind the scenes of the most important legal decisions in the country.

Last I heard, biglaw firms in NY and DC were giving out a set 200K in signing bonuses to ex-SCOTUS law clerks plus some were giving a reimbursement of the salary disparity that clerks would have made during their years as clerks if at their firm.

All I have to say about that is wow.

I remember telling my non-lawyer friends and family that I was going to do a clerkship. I got everything from "is that like a secretarial position?" to "do they pay you for that?" to "I thought you were doing really well in law school." I fully understand why many law clerks (especially federal) are now calling themselves "staff attorneys."