ABA's Answer to Shoddy Legal Job Market: "Architecture"

As a national association representing the legal profession, the ABA should provide objective views and rationale answers to obvious and known contemporaneous issues in the profession--namely, the job slump. That's really not a hard premise to swallow. Having accepted that statement, I find it deceptive and even unethical for the ABA to assert that "As Traditional Legal Jobs Dry Up, Students Can Mold Unique Careers" (BTW that is actually the name of the article...no I am not joking). Knowing that reporters and writers for journals often desire a certain mood in their writing, I expected this to be sarcasm. But after re-reading the title and completing the 12 line article, I could not have been more wrong, the ABA was SERIOUS.

Read this excerpt from the article --"Meg Reuter, assistant dean for career planning at New York Law School, is among those who see the bright side. 'American law schools now produce more graduates than there are traditional lawyering positions,' Reuter told the National Law Journal. 'There is more opportunity to secure an alternative legal job, which often can be better renumerated.'"--
I wonder if Meg knows that "renumeration" is defined as "compensation for services rendered", and if so, does she know that "alternative legal job" hardly EVER means better pay. Like most recent law grads, whenever I hear the words "alternative" and "job", I see an image of a flame-thrower and my law school diploma. Also, choosing "opportunities" for alternative legal jobs is a decision that many make before coming to law school. Often the decision to take on an alternative legal job in a downward sloping job market is not an opportunity at all, but instead a cost.

As an aside, I noticed that NYLS is not exactly a highly acclaimed law school (T4?), and considering that they exist in perhaps the most highly competitive legal environments in the US (Manhattan, NY) Meg's career planning office must be entirely about alternative legal jobs. Just a thought.

Perhaps the cherry of the entire article is Meg's insightful and highly analytical framework for recent law grads in the job market, QUOTE: --"Said Reuter, 'When you decide what type of lawyer you want to be, you will be more attractive to the employers at the kind of jobs you want.'"-- Type of lawyer? How about an employed lawyer?

Article: http://www.abajournal.com/news/a_traditional_legal_jobs_dry_up_students_can_mold_unique_careers

Create Your Own Intelligence: Bush-era Techniques Were Super Good.

So apparently the CIA's much criticized interrogation techniques do in fact yield really good information. Of course they do---they produce the intelligence required for Bush's henchmen to walk the beaten path of governance by self-interest and subterfuge (i.e. WD-40, I mean, WMD?).

You see, hindsight is 20-20, and formerly classified CIA reports are golden for this reason. We can get a glimpse of the raw, mostly unedited, pathetic and hypocritical governance that we sometimes call a democratic republic. Absolute control over the dissemination of information (information is really a good euphemism here for intelligence) becomes a ruling party's most powerful weapon against its own people. How else can the public's perspective and the political thought-process be manipulated to conform with self-interested rulers? After all, information brought us the War in Iraq.

Enough sentiments, here's an interesting thought: What IF a thorough psychoanalysis of detainees revealed that our CIA's interrogation techniques are actually counterproductive? A scientific paper published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences details the enhanced techniques our agents use in producing...creating...extrapolating information from detainees.

The conclusion is simple: CIA techniques are damaging to the truth. But who's looking for the truth? It's information we are after, and if we can essentially plant the information we want--it doesn't get much better than that.

Yahoo Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_cia_interrogation_study

Gilbert, AZ Parents "Fear" Exposure to Obama's Message!!!

Parents of Gilbert, AZ public high schoolers fear exposure to Obama's education address will corrupt their children. I couldn't help this blog...I think you know what's coming.
Are you kidding me? The main concern seems to be fear of exposure to partisan politics, because the speech might be perceived as political speech, and it may "coach" students into favoring a particular political flavor.

Let's address the issue directly, and just assume Obama's education reform speech WILL be 100% political. And the problem is...? Exposure to politics and the political process is precisely what the young adult demographic needs. Unfortunately, teens are not exposed to the political process early enough to gain an interest or relate the PROCESS to their lives. As a result, this demographic is slow in developing a taste for politics, and is silent on many issues that directly affect them or will affect them.

Parents that fear their children may form a biased political opinion need to understand what their children in public schools are already being exposed to. Perhaps they would then realize that political speech should be the least of their concern. High school is a social institution, where students develop a taste for an array of social influences. Does politics exist in a vacuum independent of this social institution? Besides, most high schoolers are capable of developing their own interests and opinions on political issues, regardless of the slant being portrayed. But the initial spark must occur during formal education for young adults to comprehend and appreciate the political process. It's a this point in their education that they should gain an appreciation for how this country functions.

Besides, Obama's address is about EDUCATION, maybe that's why it seems so out of place in Arizona (we are one of the lowest ranked states in education). I think parents are afraid kids may learn something from Obama. Just imagine if they heard such a speech one year ago, they would have learned that "nuclear" is pronounced "new-cle-er" and not "nuke-Q-ler" [just listen to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hORaebYWDwk]

So when precisely should young-adults be exposed to politics?? Wait, wait... I know...when they impregnate or become pregnant from their first sexual experience they can wait a few years until they are old enough to vote on abortion issues. At least then political issues will become relevant.

Here's the article. http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2009/09/03/20090903gr-obama0905.html

Here's a sample of what Obama is most likely to say: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/10/Taking-on-Education/

Advising Start-Ups, and Creating Opportunities

Start-ups have a lot on their plate. Troubleshooting each and every issue, from technical to market feasibility to legal, presents an issue too profound to address alone. It's no wonder that nearly 90% fail in their first year of existence, and nearly 75-80% fail in year 2 or 3.

The Technology Ventures Services Group is one of the only academic and practical providers of business, legal, and technical consulting, all under one roof that's not going to cost clients FAT coin (sometime is FREE!).

You can read more about what the TVSG does and how you can get involved here.
The link is also a shameless plug about my experiences and accomplishments with the TVSG. Yes, that's my pic in the link. Just read it.

http://www.law.asu.edu/?id=1938

The "Clear and Convincing" Fraud by Lawyers

High-dollar law suits magnetize the devil in some lawyers. I suppose the $39 billion plaintiffs sought from Dole was no exception. US lawyers, mostly from Texas and California flocked to Nicaragua to recruit injured plaintiffs, associate with local lawyers, and setup in-house sperm labs. Seriously, in-house sperm labs.

The claims centered around Dole's use of the pesticide DBCP and the sterility it may have caused to thousands of banana crop workers. Although many, of the claims were legitimate, outright fraud undermined many of the plaintiff's claims. What kind of fraud? Well, ask Juan J. Dominguez, a personal-injury lawyer from now under criminal investigation for his actions. He paid "captains" to find plaintiffs, setup a sterility lab in his law office, and was even awarded damages for people that were later determined to have never been employed at the plantation. A recent Superior Court of California case dismissed a series of DBCP claims based on clear and convincing evidence of fraud by plaintiffs and their lawyers.

Because lawyers jeopardized the integrity of so many claims, many legitimate claims were dismissed. Sterile workers could have had some recovery but for greedy lawyers. What happened to the Professional Code of Conduct that these lawyers swear to? Lawyers are constantly confronted with ethical dilemmas, which is why the bar in each state has a separate set of rules regulating the practice of law. Prohibitions on soliciting clients, collecting fees for referrals, frivolous law suits, tampering with evidence, etc. etc. are all specifically addressed.
But the professional code is nothing for some lawyers who will do anything to collect a hefty fee. Unfortunately, such events taint the integrity of our profession. The impact such impropriety has on the public's perspective of our profession is devastating. Would all lawyers behave in this manner if given the chance? Is fraud in litigation the way cases of this magnitude are won? Do lawyers represent causes, or their own financial interests? The Dole DBCP fraud cases make these questions hard to answer.

To the legal professional, these conflicts are an inherent part of providing legal services--similar to those conflicts that arise in other professions. To the lay person, this IS the profession.

Read the article in WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125061508138340501.html

Case opinion: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-Dole_Chaney_ruling.pdf

So Sue Me for Blogging (?)

It's nothing new: what you say can hurt you. But it seems that the prevalence of social media is sparking more litigation now than ever. According to a recent WSJ article, there were 106 civil lawsuits against blog-type users, resulting in $17.5 M in damages against them. Social media makes being sued almost too easy. Think about the most obvious legal feet you can trip over: copyright infringement, trademark infringement, defamation, and libel. Posting someone else's videos on YouTube, uploading copied pics on Facebook, making rash comments on Twitter, these online activities have become ubiquitous.

What most social media participants tend to neglect are the very thin protections (if any) they have. If you post a video or image that's infringing, at least you may be afforded an opportunity to take it down before a suit or injunction occurs. But, making comments that you would only otherwise make on a bathroom stall which can now be made on a public forum reaching thousands in an instance can be dangerous stuff. It's pretty hard to unring a bell, don't you think?

ASU's OBAMA Commencement

Here's a highlight of our commencement with the President Obama:

Commencement 2009 from ASUF Admin on Vimeo.

You can read a transcript of his quite captivating commencement speech here:
http://www.asuchallenges.com/commencement2009/obama.asp

Who Regulates the Regulators?

"The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation."

That's a direct quote from the SEC's "How the SEC protects Investors" webpage. Arguably, the single most important element for sustaining this mission is fairness. How does the SEC sustain fairness? By maintaining market efficiency and transparency through public-disclosure. The dissemination of market information is critical to fair dealing and fraud protection in any market. But it's of particular importance in the securities market because this information is often the sole factor for the public to rely upon. For example, I can't exactly call up management at Google, AIG, Citibank, or GM and say "hey guys, so tell me, is there anything that could go wrong this quarter or any long-term debt obligations you guys wanna tell me about? I got about a mil riding on you?" The SEC mandated Form 10-K easily disposes of such matters, allowing investors a fair chance to invest w/o blind reliance. Undisclosed risks would pollute the essential risk-return relationship trading markets are known for.

Ask yourself, if there are measures in place to check disclosure, protect investors, maintain fairness, and efficiency, why does the public get dooped so frequently??? Is it the analysts? Let's not forget, Enron was mysteriously rated as a top pick by analysts across the board only weeks prior to their earnings recalculation announcement, when their shares fell from $90 to .50 cents. When do the turds actually start hitting the fan?

Let me sprinkle some more pepper on this well done issue: Today's WSJ reports "Insider Trading Probe at SEC". Ok so a few guys that were supposed to be our watchdogs ate the steak. What's that got to do with you and me. How about regulators using information for personal profit, not public protection. Even worse, how about the public relying on a false sense of protection? Partial protection is like having breaks that work once in while-- would you feel comfortable doing 65 mph knowing you could "sometimes" rely on your breaks?

Quote from WSJ: The SEC has "'essentially no compliance system' to detect potential insider trading. It said the agency didn't conduct spot checks on trading and the various offices that received trading reports didn't share information."

Additionally: "Any trades employees make have to be reported to the agency's director of personnel within five business days. The report said the SEC doesn't have someone in that position but that there is an associate executive director in Human Resources. It said several SEC employees were unfamiliar with the rules or misunderstood them."

My point is this: How can we rely on financial policing by persons who act in self-interest and don't even have the means to protect us? That's not to say the SEC is to blame for every financial fallout, but then again...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124241028545124563.html#mod=testMod

3L Tells Dean to Back-Down the Shananigans, and Refund his Tuition

The job market, yeah it's pretty bad out there. And if you are a graduating 3L, who are you kidding, there are plenty of jobs out there: Radio Shack, McDonald's, Taco Bell. Heck, there is a Wal-Mart not too far from my house. I am sure you can make partnership there.

My sentiments are shared far and wide. In all honestly though, we are not entitled to special treatment. These are tough times, and resilience will be rewarded. But some 3Ls have gone a little too far. Below are a few snippets from an actual letter a Loyola University Chicago School of Law wrote to his Dean:

"After yesterday's disaster of a panel discussion on the financial crisis of the nation, I am so angry, I can't even sleep.

I am officially giving notice that I will refuse to answer any exam question that goes beyond the bounds of the course description and I fully expect to graduate 5 days later. I will be encouraging my fellow 3L's to do the same. Should this letter or my course of action be answered by any negative action that would affect my graduating law school, I will send an open letter the the entire Chicago legal community explaining to the potential employers of future Loyola Law grads that professors at Loyola School of Law are given free reign to teach whatever they want despite the school's official course catalog and descriptions."

Now I know I am not the only one. But this is really going out on a limb. There's more:

"Please read the following:

282 - Accounting for Lawyers (3). This course is intended to provide an understanding of basic accounting principles and their practical application in connection with the practice of law. There are no prerequisites and no requirement of a business background. Topics covered include fundamental principles of accounting for business enterprises; how to analyze and understand an income statement, balance sheet, and statement of cash flow; basic concepts of revenue recognition; conventions for capitalization versus expenses; and how to recognize possible manipulation of financial and accounting statements. Recent high profile accounting scandals such as Enron and WorldCom will also be explored.

I chose my classes very carefully this semester such that nearly every class I am taking was directly, and practically, applicable to my job after graduation, including Accounting for Lawyers. Because I don't have a degree in business, economics, or accounting, and because I have never taken an accounting class, I, like many of my fellow classmates, took this class for its practical nature. In light most favorable to Prof. [REDACTED], we spent perhaps two class periods discussing the above basics. He actually pointed us to some website and basically told us to teach ourselves basic accounting. If that what we wanted to do, we wouldn't have signed up for this class."

Now here's his pitch, get ready for this:

"I feel that Loyola and Professor [REDACTED] completely defrauded the students in this class and misrepresented this class by offering the above course description and as a result, I have wasted the proportionate amount of my tuition dollars (approx $3000) taking this class. Prof. [REDACTED] has repeatedly, and I do mean repeatedly, announced to our class his extreme displeasure in the Federal Government's propping up the recently filed financial institutions, at a great cost and little benefit to the average American citizen. It his strong opinion that CEO's who promise shareholders one thing but do another to line their own pockets should not be so greatly compensated.

I challenge Prof. [REDACTED] to live up to his own words. Because he completely failed to meet the objectives of this course as described and sold to us, that Loyola refund each student in this class the proportionate amount of tuition paid. As compensation for the complete waste of our time in taking a class we did not want when instead we could have enrolled in another more practical class, I urge Loyola to make sure that everyone in this class gets FULL CREDIT for the course, and a grade that reflects the student's understanding of topics that are limited to those described in the course description. And considering what little was taught to us, it should be a short exam."

I share his sentiments about some professors creating class substance while using the bathroom right before class. But this is really out there.

Cheers to an awesome profession.

Indian-Democratic Response to Bad Politics!

Solution: Relax the Standards, Coverup Losses?

Does it make sense for the Financial Accounting Standards Board to reduce the standards required for what is ultimately a benchmark for valuating assets (mark-to-market rules)? I thought that when standards fall, expectations do also, and the garbage-in-garbage-out model perpetuates?

Is this another example of bowing to the bankers?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123867739560682309.html#mod=testMod