Tip of the Hat

As a commenter int he thread below points out, Justice Ginsburg has hired a Boaltie for (presumably) OT 2011. So major congrats to GS. (And let's keep it at that level of specificity please).

BCS: Time to Drop the C

The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee will hold a hearing tomorrow (Tuesday, July 7th) entitled "The Bowl Championship Series: Is it Fair and in Compliance with Antitrust Law?" It will be broadcast live on the interthigny here. Watch it, see what you think, and then call your senator's office. As for me, I think it's high time these greedy conspirators stopped gang-raping our national pastime. I'm not counting on this hearing accomplishing much, but here's hoping!

Do any of you antitrust gurus care to weigh in on this?

Going OSCAR Wilde

Quick clerkship question here. For the last month I have been watching judges in OSCAR hire left and right, presumably from the host of graduates and alumni who are not constrained to the hiring plan. It's frustrating to watch the alumni peck away at my judge list, but then that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. I know my place, and my place is the hiring plan: Boalt "adheres to the hiring plan" which means that all rising 3L's must wait until early September to apply for clerkships, with the caveat that the CDO will support early applications to judges who have been known to hire early from paper applications.

Presumably one must identify these judges by word of mouth. But by definition they all have one feature in common -- they all accept paper applications. I know that some students have already resolved to 'de-couple' their paper applications from the mass mailing melee, by sending them early. I haven't made up my mind on that one, yet, but my question is this: is it wise to forsake OSCAR? Given the tighter competition this year, would it be wise to apply early to any judge who accepts any paper application? Could it hurt me to send early paper applications to judges who accept both? Or is there some sight-unseen benefit to the hiring plan that I have yet to discover?

Scratch the above. I just realized I was beating around the bush. My real question is this: absent an explicit request from a judge, why should I adhere to the hiring plan?

Now before anyone flips out, I'm not announcing an intention to go rogue, or anything. I'm merely confused. Could somebody please explain to me what good the hiring plan is for Boalt 3L's?

"I'm Gunna Pass this Damn Thing" Thread

Here's a new thread that is meant to be more focused on bar prep study - questions, advice, mnemonics, bitching about lecturers, etc.

To help start it off, try this link to a prior N&B thread on helpful mnemonics.

Good luck everyone!

[Note: I'm going to try to keep this thread at or near the top to encourage use.]
----
Bump #1 (6/23): Everyone feeling FAAABBUULLOUSS?

----
Bump #2 (7/5): So July 4 has come and gone - now what?

Guess the Crazy Alaskan's Motivation

So, Palin resigning from her governorship has got to be one of the dumbest political moves ever, right? There has got to be something bigger underneath this news that has not been revealed yet.

So, I thought we could play a little game. Whoever manages to correctly guess why Palin really left gets . . . uh . . . the honor of being right. Yeah, I don't really have anything to give you. But you can brag to all your friends.

Anyway, my theory is that she's dropping the governorship to take a job at Fox News (thus all the talk about trying to effect change "outside of government"). Although, I'd assume we'd have heard some stories about negotiations going on. But I'm sticking to my guns.

Big Changes in Big Law?

I don't check the Shark very often, but was prompted by a commenter in the thread below.

TWO rather interesting tid-bits that work well together for a merged thread here:

First, Orrick announces tomorrow that it officially drops lock-step salaries. Very interesting (albeit confusing) system they're announcing there.

Second, law schools are conspiring with law firms to standardize OCI in the spring.

For as little change as these systems have seen over the years, the widespread implementation of either would be a rather groundbreaking event.

UC-XI

HT to anonymous in the previous thread for linking to DE's op-ed in today's LA Times.

The short version is that California ranks 49th among states whose high school graduates go on to college, and that a fully-fledged cyber-UC campus (read: low overhead --> low tuition) might be a way to track kids toward higher education, "not just in Barstow but in Bangor and Beijing."

As a threshold observation, this certainly is an expression of our Dean's consistent, positive, progressive attitude, and an example of the kind of thinking and energy I admire. DE cares.

I do have some questions, though. First, what do Bangor and Beijing have to do with California's high school to college matriculation rate? Second, what's wrong with the community colleges we already have? Are they full? If not, then why? The kids who chose to avoid community college seem likely to avoid an online education, too. But I could be wrong about that.

Third, and more important, a big part of the problem is that California's educated population is shrinking, and nothing is being done to stop the bleeding. Meanwhile, other segments of the population are on the rise. This is a touchy subject, but put it this way: although the number of people in California continues to increase, the resident number of native-born California residents is declining. Why? They're going to Nevada, to Oregon, to Arizona, because they don't want to be here anymore. Would UC-XI help? My sense is that they could just as easily leave with an online degree as without.

That's the cynical take. There are others. Yesterday I logged on to the Department of Education's website and checked my total outstanding student loan balance. Some of those loans are a product of choices I have made. But most of it comes from the painful, expensive reality of a UC education. It's true that I'm willing to borrow against my future worth (which I suppose is a form of betting on myself -- how narcissistic), but maybe that shouldn't be what a high caliber education costs. Maybe the state should bear that risk, instead? If it wants to encourage more people to learn, maybe it could reduce the incredible financial burden an education incurs? I suppose UC-XI is way of doing just that.

Oh but wait, there is prop 13. And voter referendums. And the ridiculous priorities of the good folks up in Sacramento.

Okay, I'm rambling and I'll stop, but no wonder people see greener pastures on the other side of the Sierras. I can tell you first hand that it's actually pretty nice out there.

Real World-Probate Challenge

For those of you looking for more essays to study for the bar:

Michael Jackson apparently died intestate with a purported will. You're the probate judge. Discuss.

For those of you looking for a distraction:

I must confess cracking a very wide grin at the news that MTV's director of programming is stepping down and that its ratings were down 20% last year. I've wrestled with the thought that maybe, just maybe, I'm outgrowing the network and nothing more. But I really think it's the network that's leaving me. Like a Greek cabdriver asked me on the Island of Rhodes, "Where is today's Pericles?", I ask, where is today's Beavis & Butthead, Daria, Singled Out, Road Rules, Celebrity Deathmatch, even TRL under Carson Daly? Am I just an old crank or has MTV gone down the toilet by constantly featuring those human vermin--I'm talking about you Mr. Creepy Flesh-colored Beard.* I don't even want to discuss VH1 for fear of getting a STD just at the mere mention of the network, but I'll just say three words: Pop-up Video.

* Credit: Joel McHale, who is my only source of MTV programming these days.

Kent Work?

Convicted felon and I guess now former Judge Samuel Kent was the first sitting federal judge to be impeached by the House in something like 20 years.* Naturally I was excited for the upcoming Senate trial. But by resigning Kent is hoping to avoid a Senate conviction, which brings us to obscure constitutional question time.

For those of you studying for the bar, the July 2007 exam had a MBE question on the Bill of Attainder clause, so pay attention. Can the Senate continue with the trial and convict? The punishment upon conviction is: "removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States." U.S. const. art. I, sec. 3. Removal is moot. But may the Senate convict just to keep him out of a federal gig? Isn't the felony conviction enough to do that? I want my trial damn it!!!

*The previous judge to have that honor was Chief Judge Walter Nixon of S.D. Miss. who according to a Boalt Prof drew the largest paralegal salary in the State of Mississippi following his conviction and disbarrment.

On MJ

Obviously you've all heard the news of the passing of Michael Jackson. I don't know how to feel exactly. First, I'm naturally saddened by the loss of any life, especially one as iconic and influential as his. But there's that other part of me. The one that remembers a more umm, erratic, Michael Jackson? I guess, I don't want to be seen as badmouthing the dead especially so close to the tragedy. But am I alone in having this hint of mixed emotions? I'm not even sure I can properly frame it.

And I assume there must be a debate of the Top 3 MJ songs. I'll think about my choices a bit, but roughly something like: Beat It, Billie Jean; I'll Be There (Jackson 5).

Prodigal y Daughter

From the Volokh Conspiracy, via google alerts and an anonymous tipster:

Congratulations to Recent Boalt Hall [g]raduate Carolyn Zabrycki, whose student article (Toward a Definition of "Testimonial": How Autopsy Reports Do Not Embody the Qualities of a Testimonial Statement, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1093 (2008)) was cited three times -- and seemingly significantly relied on -- by Justice Kennedy's dissent in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (pdf).

Congratulations, indeed!

Paging IP Nerds

I know it's not one of the bar exam topics, but I have an IP question that someone might be able to answer. In short, Friend T asked me about this situation and it struck me as an interesting legal question worth exploring, so here it is.

Friend T recently held an engagement party at some Armenian banquet hall (if you're Armenian, you know the routine: lots of food and envelopes stuffed with cash as gifts...yes, it's a bit like the wedding scene from Goodfellas, but we're not all named Paulie). She hired a certain videographer to forever memorialize the event. Said videographer also freelances as an ad producer. Much to her shock, videos of her celebration are now being used for ads for a different banquet hall. She has no K or other agreement with the videographer. Who owns the copyright in the video? Is there fair use defense?

***

For those studying for the Bar, late-June and July are the best times to seek out distractions. Please nominate how you are taking your mind off "Gooooooood ideaaaaaaaaaaaaa????"

UPDATE: First off, big thanks for the quick responses. Now, this story in today's LAT cracks me up. Smoking's such an addiction, that the very banquet halls I mentioned in the original post are almost always filled with cigarette smoke and riddled with ash trays for the convenience of the smokers. On the one hand, no proprietor wants to confront drunks who are addicted to cigarettes or lose their property when someone puts the cigarette down on table cloth. On the other hand, you're violating the law. Personally, if I were the Glendale F.D. or the LAFD, I'd make it a "habit" of crashing Armenian weddings to enforce the smoking ban. In 3 weeks, you'll have a budget surplus from all the fines.

Help is Nigh on the Student Loan Front

Do I understand all of this? No, to be honest, I don't.

But undoubtedly many students will find the article, which features various boalties in its summary of changes in law school loan forgiveness and repayment programs, helpful.

Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel

Does anyone else see a strong parallel between TJ's recent photo of the excavation at Boalt and the conclusion of the famous children's story, Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel?

I mean, how are they going to get the excavators out? It will take either a wrench or a crane.

Budget Update

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christopher Edley
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:05:29 -0700
Subject: Budget update
To: Students - 1L; Students - 2L

Dear Berkeley Law Student:

I write to update you on the financial situation at the Law School in
light of the on-going budget crisis in California and the consequent
challenges for UC Berkeley. My central message is one of reassurance:
We will continue to offer the best education of any law school on this
or any nearby planet. At this point I foresee few if any budget cuts
that will have material near-term effects on students.

The most significant program consequences to you will likely be some modest reduction in the number of small-enrollment offerings by adjunct lecturers, some slowing of the rapid expansion of the faculty we have pursued in recent years, perhaps some limitations on the scope of technical support on computer issues, and perhaps a slight reduction in the caloric content of the free lunches at speaking events.

On the positive side, it now appears likely that we will be able to follow through with the announcements I made earlier this spring concerning expansions in the Loan Repayment Assistance Program, more summer public interest fellowship grants, expansion of career services counseling, and several other measures. We will continue and expand the Boalt in D.C. program for a semester of study in Washington, D.C. We will continue our program of classroom renovations and construction.

The West Terrace will be completed before classes begin. Excavation for the South Addition will be complete in a few days. Eight new core faculty members join us this summer, which gets us three-quarters of the way toward the goal set when I arrived five years ago of a 40% net
increase in the faculty.

Please be clear, however, that the budget situation remains fluid. The Chancellor and Provost have not yet finalized the campus plans, in part because the Legislature remains tied in knots. Gordian, it seems. The Law School is in remarkably sound shape compared with most other campus units, and compared with most of our peer institutions. There are several reasons: our strategy of steadily raising tuition closer towards a benchmark of about 10% below the average of top-10 schools; the $125 million capital campaign has produced successive years of record alumni contributions; our low dependence on state appropriations, relative to other campus units, because the state support for the Law School was disproportionately cut during the recession earlier in the decade; the relatively small contribution of endowment income in our revenue stream, relative to other top-10 schools. The last two points mean we are more insulated than we would otherwise be from sharp state budget cuts and the Wall Street meltdown. Make no mistake, times will be tight. However, I simply do not expect that we will face the extraordinary budget reductions hitting many of our peer schools.

I hope the balance of your summer is both productive and restful.

Sincerely,

Christopher Edley
Dean and Orrick Professor of Law
Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley

--
Christopher Edley, Jr.
The Honorable William H. Orrick, Jr. Distinguished Chair and Dean
Berkeley Law
University of California

--
(Via BlackBerry)

Won't Somebody Please Think of the 2Ls?

At the gentle urging of the folks at the Clerkship Notification Blog, I figured I'd remind Boalties about that invaluable resource for those pursuing the clerkship path. I'd also point out the many clerkship threads on this blog can be found in the formerly "Kevin Smith" label. Otherwise consider this an open-thread to try to top the neuroticism of the 3Ls.

Oh and Go Lakers. Do Bay Area sports fans have ANYTHING to look forward to other than Moneyball the Movie?

UPDATE:

Uighurs Relocate to New Beachfront Property

Some very good news indeed: the Obama administration has finally found a country willing to accept 17 of Guantanamo's Uighur detainees.

And now the funny bit: that country is...the tiny island of Palau. Of course, Micronesian hospitality isn't free. Per HuffPo, "the U.S. was prepared to give Palau up to $200 million in development, budget support and other assistance in return for accepting the Uighurs and as part of a mutual defense and cooperation treaty that is due to be renegotiated this year."

The population of Palau is just over 20,000 people. So we may be effectively paying each resident $10,000. Thank God we didn't pay to settle the detainees in Germany. (Anyone have a spare $800 billion?).

Or maybe we should think of it as a per-detainee payment; it's a steal at only $12 million. Of course, the resettlement is only "temporary," so maybe that's a bit high for a one year lease.

Of course, that $200 million isn't just to accept the Uighurs. It's also for "mutual defense." I'm kind of interested to hear how that would work out if the US was invaded.

All kidding aside, it's a good thing, regardless of cost.

Hang on to Your Handgun

As you may know, the Ninth Circuit recently held in Nordyke that the Second Amendment is incorporated into the 14th Amendment's due process clause. Last week the Seventh Circuit held exactly the opposite in National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago (pdf). On Wednesday the NRA filed a petition for certiorari (pdf), which raises one question:

Whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the states, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.

Incorporation cuts both ways, doesn't it?

Query: if the Court grants cert, what are the strangest amici bedfellows this case could produce?

It Begins [for the rest of us]...

Barbri began for the rest of us today (CA Berkeley location - EDIT: NY Berkeley location is tomorrow). Gotta love that overwhelmed look on everyone's face this morning.

In true Berkeley fashion, things got off to a rocky start - notably, tech problems with the video sound. But once the first subject video started rolling, I think many of us decided that this may not be fun but might be manageable after all.

However, I suppose the better test for collective mood will come tomorrow after we've started to get a feeling of what the homework is going to be like.

Any other thoughts? Hoping to reboot this as an open forum...

---

Again bumping up to encourage more discussion. End of our second (or third in some cases) week - how's everyone feeling?

Grades Open Forum

Loathe the idea of this thread, but providing in response to a comment request below.

One question I had earlier is how can a 3L get a grade before a 2L in the very same class - aren't we on the same curve?

Kimberly Guilfoyle Suitor Watch

Not Sotomayor, but the other Mayor.

Commenter with the wittiest/funniest proposed title for this post wins that honor.

$@!$# the PC at Work For Throwing My At-Home Apple Use Into a Tailspin

That's all.

Feel free to share your frustrations & embarrassments during the first week of your summer internship here. (Anyone who ended up in the wrong law firm today after entering the wrong elevator bank, raise your hand. Any hands raised? No hands? Oh. Um, me neither.)

Chutspah Watch

Legislature wants greater control over UC policy because they are upset with administrator salaries accompanied by fee hikes. Hmmm. In that case, might I demand greater control over the Legislature for raiding the UC's coffers to cover its own incompetence?

Prop 8 Re-Redux

By now we all know that the California Supreme Court has ruled that Proposition 8 is constitutional, but that existing same-sex marriages shall stand. It was probably the correct legal decision, though not the correct moral one.

I'm posting to share this link: Today, Ted Olson and David Boies filed a federal equal protection claim challenging the validity of Proposition 8. While sexual orientation is not a federally recognized suspect class, it is recognized in California, and that appears to be the thrust of today's federal claim.

Whether this marks the beginning of a sea change in equal protection jurisprudence obviously remains to be seen. But if so, you heard it here first.

Sotomayor Talking Points

I have a feeling this is going to get nasty. I know after the 2004 election, during some of the bleakest times for a Democrat, I was itching for a fight over Roberts. But after surveying the political landscape I regretfully realized the impossibility and inanity of such an act. Well, I think the GOP will do precisely the opposite because they just don't have anyone left who thinks rationally. All they have left is an angry base that is just seething and reeling from the thought of losing their guns and formal wear in the Oval Office.

Such a fight would make them look ridiculous and juvenile. The following talking points should explain why:

GOP Argument 1. Sen. Inhofe has already released a statement saying it's his job "to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences."

Talking Points:
-- Neither Republicans nor Democrats made any such offensive suggestion during the nomination of then-Judge Alito by accusing the Italian-American from New Jersey of possibly being biased in favor of mob bosses.

-- Both of President Bush 43's picks had service in Republican administrators. Why didn't Republicans raise concerns about their political preferences clouding their judgments?

-- See also Sen. Lindsay Graham quote below.

GOP Argument 2. A variation of argument 1, but be prepared for language implying "lack of intellect" or things along those lines essentially signaling to the base: "Hey, she's an AA baby."

Talking Points:
-- She has the same education credentials as Alito, longer judicial service than Roberts, and a more varied career than Rehnquist. By any measure, she is more than qualified to sit on our highest court.

GOP Argument 3: Liberal.

Talking Points:
-- Elections have consequences.
-- More specifically, the words of Senator Lindsay Graham during the Roberts Confirmation Hearings apply more than ever:

To me, the central issue before the Senate is whether or not the Senate will allow President Bush to fulfill his campaign promise to appoint a well- qualified, strict constructionist to the Supreme Court and, in this case, to appoint a chief justice to the Supreme Court in the mold of Justice Rehnquist.

He's been elected president twice.

He has not hidden from the public what his view of a Supreme Court justice should be and the philosophy that they should embrace.

In my opinion, by picking you, he has lived up to his end of the bargain with the American people by choosing a well-qualified, strict constructionist.

You have been described as brilliant, talented and well- qualified, and that's by Democrats.

The question is, is that enough in 2005 to get confirmed? Maybe not.

Professor Michael Gerhardt has written an article in 2000 called "The Federal Appointments Process," and I think he has given some advice to our Democratic friends in the past and, maybe recently, about the confirmation process that we're engaged in today.

And he has written, "The Constitution establishes a presumption of confirmation that works to the advantage of the president and his nominee."

I agree with that. Elections matter.

We're not here to debate how to solve all the nation's problems. We're not here to talk about liberal philosophy versus conservative philosophy and what's best for the country. We're here to talk about you and whether or not you are qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, whether or not you have the intellect, the integrity and the character.

And it has been said in the past by members of this committee -- Senator Kennedy -- I believe it's recognized by most senators that we're not charged with a responsibility of approving justices if their views always coincide with our own. We're really interested in knowing whether a nominee has the background, experience, qualifications, temperament, integrity to handle the most sensitive, important and responsible job. And that's being on the Supreme Court.

If you're looking for consistency, you've probably come to the wrong place, because the truth of the matter is that we're all involved in the electoral process ourselves and we have different agendas.

*Note that the Democrats at the time seemed obsessed over the Senate's role in thoroughly weighing the nominee.

GOP Argument 4: Supreme Court [will/has] reverse Sotomayor in Ricci.

Talking Point:
-- And the Supreme Court reversed Roberts in Hamdan while he was sitting as the Chief Justice. So what? Frankly, that case had far more significance by defining constitutional limits to the executive war powers, as opposed to the more limited issue of firefighter exams.

GOP Argument 5: She wants to make policy based on her Duke commencement address.

Talking Point:
-- No. And in full context, even conservatives agree she is absolutely right. The Circuit Courts are the most important branch of the federal judiciary because they are the final arbiters ofu the vast majority of issues that arise in federal courts.

GOP Argument 6: She's still racist. See Berkeley Speech.

Talking Point:
-- No. See full quote. And with respect to taking statements out of context, see current Ranking Member Sen. Jeff Sessions during the Roberts hearings: "But as you have already seen, our confirmation process is not a pretty site. Time and again, you will have your legal positions, your predecisional memoranda -- even as a young lawyer -- distorted or taken out of context."

* * *
Feel free submit your anticipated GOP Arguments and talking points.

UPDATE: Here is Judge Sotomayor's full speech at Berkeley. I do not understand how anyone with 3 functioning neurons can take that statement as anything other than a tongue-in-cheek remark given the rest of the speech. Also, I didn't know she was a classmate of our own Prof. RM. And if RM's torts lectures are any indication, the statement was soaked with sarcasm.

It's Sotomayor!

I'm heading out the door to my first day of work, so I don't have time to do a lengthy post about this. (Patrick, feel free to update this with your thoughts.) But I thought we should throw up a post about the recent announcement.

My two cents: the AP may think she would be the first Hispanic justice, but Josiah Bartlett and I disagree.

Sound off below with your thoughts!

Who Would Jesus Ban?

Liberty University (founded by evangelical and Teletubbie-hater Jerry Falwell) has banned the college Democrats student group, citing that the parent organization (the Democratic Party) contradicts the "moral principals" held by the school. These values clearly do not include freedom of speech and political beliefs.

I am curious to see if the anonymous commenters that equivocated disagreement with John Yoo's legal reasoning to the suppression of ideas are equally upset about this.

CNN article found here.

Antitrust Theories for Giggling and Crying

The San Francisco Chronicle has the following story: "Green Day lashes out at Wal-Mart policy"

Wal-Mart will not "stock any CD with a parental advisory sticker." Instead, it requests a censored "clean" version. Green Day -- affronted by the request -- refused to provide one. Hence, Wal-Mart refused to carry Green Day's new album.

As open and shut as that seems, Green Day is outraged. "Guitarist Mike Dirnt said: 'As the biggest record store in the America, they should probably have an obligation to sell people the correct art.'" Lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong: ""If you think about bands that are struggling or smaller than Green Day ... to think that to get record your out in places like that, but they won't carry it because of the content and you have to censor yourself . . . I mean, what does that say to a young kid whose trying to speak his mind making a record for the first time? It's like a game that you have to play. You have to refuse to play it."

The "correct" art? I assume he didn't mean it. "A game you have to play"? I suppose. Like not cursing at work or wearing clothing in public? We have to play those games too.

I think the nub of Green Day's complaint is that they don't consider their album offensive, and they cannot fathom why anyone else would, and that the policy is therefore unfairly applied to them. But it's Wal-Mart that gets to make that call. Wal-Mart has to answer to its customers' expectations and shareholders' values. And even if Wal-Mart is a dominant music retailer, I find it hard to articulate a theory of how this policy "harms the competitive process." It strips no one of access to Wal-Mart's retail channels, expect perhaps an artist with Tourette's.

In the end, I have trouble understanding why the Chronicle ran this story. What is there to it beyond "Green Day's upset"? I suppose Wal-Mart bashing is a bit of a sport, but this seems particularly vapid for front-screen news. Then again, when I compare SFGate to the Washington Post's home page, I am shocked at how vapid the Chronicle's reporting and syndicated republishing has become. "Hobbit House"? "A night of erotic restraint"? "Lost some weight? Here's $20"? Those are current front-screen headlines. I note this so that when the Chronicle goes bankrupt, we remember that product quality was a factor.

Right Back Where I Started From

In the early parts of this decade, a bubble brewing in California burst, tanking the economy. Pundits, grocery store workers, and conservatives called for the Legislature to have the power to save up reserves during boom times to use during bust times. After the second California bubble burst, the Legislature finally offered a ballot measure to give itself that power. The voters yesterday rejected it. Welcome to California.

This is the land where voters have consistently proven themselves incapable of governing by proposition and refuse to allow the professionals to do the governing. Californians believe in the following:

-- More freeways to ease congestion.
-- But not in my backyard (see, South Pas and the 710).
-- More mass transit.
-- But must come with 500,000 space parking lots or else how will people get to the subway? Take a bus?
-- Clean air.
-- But lower registration fees for pollutants like SUVs.
-- No new taxes.
-- More teachers.
-- No new taxes.
-- More cops.
-- No new taxes.
-- Three strikes.
-- No new taxes.
-- No lines at the DMV.

Dear Califonians, I love this state. I think it is the best state and can't imagine why anyone would want to leave after they move here.* Don't you think it's time we stepped out of the way and allowed the Legislature to actually govern? Our ballot measures have tied up the vast majority of the budget in mandatory spending. The only discretionary part left is education. If Sacramento doubles classroom sizes and fires a bunch of teachers, we will only fuel this death-spiral of ignorance.

[Edit: I meant to add the following: "* I say this intentionally to piss off the out-of-staters because it is one of the first themes you get bombarded with when in California."

As long as we're adding thoughts, I almost feel like the state needs a benevolent dictator to guide us through these turbulent times. I really can't think of any historical figure to fit the bill though. The closest one is Octavian/Augustus. Maybe like a Solon to finally undo everything and be our "law giver?" Hmmph.]

Fraudulent VISA Text Message

Just thought I'd warn everyone out there. I received a fraudulent text message today that purported to be about my Visa card. It said that my account had been frozen for abnormal activity and gave a 408 area code phone number to call. I called my bank and credit cards directly and pretty much confirmed that the text was fraudulent, none of my cards were frozen. So, just be sure not to call that number if you get the text. I assume this might be related to the security breach that happened when our UHS files got hacked into. Or it could just be an entirely different scam. In any case, they're probably trying to fish for more personal information about us.

It Begins . . .

. . . well, for some of us at least. For those of us inept enough to demand a live Barbri session, Barbri started this morning bright and early at 9am . . . well . . . more like late and behind schedule at 9:30ish (at least for the SF St. Mary's session).

My impression from the first day is that this is going to be one long and difficult summer. The first hour or so was a quick informational session that basically covered everything we'll do over the summer. Then we took a 25 question MBE practice test on Torts, then talked over every one of those question. Then lunch. Then the same set up, but this time Criminal Law. I won't say I dominated the MC questions, but I wasn't dominated either. All in all, I definitely feel like I should be able to pass the Bar in two months, but I'm definitely not prepared right now. And I'm definitely figuring out all the topics and issues my 1L professors never covered way back in the day (like privacy in torts).

Did anybody else out there who started today have anything to gripe about? And to those of you in SF, anybody in the St. Mary's section find a good place to grab a quick lunch around that place? Also, for those of us in the St. Mary's section, how much did it suck when the schedule seemed to say that Saturday's sessions had been moved to Friday, returning us to a normal three day weekend but instead the schedule was wrong and we still do in fact have Saturday class. So lame. But who am I kidding, I'm probably just going to ditch out on that Saturday anyway, so it's not like it will matter.

Well, with that, I'm off to start reading for tomorrow. Good luck to everyone starting, and to everyone who starts next week, enjoy yourselves, you'll know our pain soon enough.

Congratulations, Graduates! Now Get the Hell Out

This is an open thread about graduation, JY protests, still-unfulfilled writing requirements, barbri study, inchoate post-graduation plans, and other fun topics.

Special recognition goes out to graduands posting between 9 and 11 a.m. And don't worry--it'll be better than the absolutely crap gifts they plan on giving the winners of the "class gift mod participation" competition. (The same mugs we got during 1L year? Off-brand "Boalt Hall" mouse pads? They couldn't fine anything that wasn't so obviously left over from the office move?).

Potomac Fever!

Today, the SF Gate openly speculates on DE for SCOTUS. Also here (bottom of page).

I feel there's not much to say, except to note that many commentators feel the next nominee will be an LGBT female, and to note that DE purports to have fallen in love with the Bay Area, professes no Potomac fever, and claims he'd prefer to spend his days sailing the bay.

Personally, a SCOTUS chair seems pretty fever-inducing. And bay sailing is at its best during the SCOTUS summer recess.

Restatement 1st of Summer Associates

It's been done before. But I figure the complete meltdown of the legal market warrants a new look into the topic of how/what to do as a summer associate. These are just my off-the-cuff thoughts and not authoritative for any firm for reasons that should be obvious.

1. Produce the best possible work-product that you can. I think the era of letting summer associates with sub-par work-product slide into an offer is over. What should you do? Think, organize, and proofread about a million times. And when you are done, do it again.

2. Don't waste the client's/firm's resources. Sure everyone is inefficient when it comes to billing when they first start. But the chances that your work will actually be billed to the client is slightly higher (although there are also competing reasons why your work may not be billed, e.g., showing the client good will by writing off the time billed by a summer on a time-consuming research project). More importantly, your Lexis/Westlaw usage is not written off. Someone has to pay for it. Be weary of such phrases as "free" and "already paid for" coming from the mouths of the respective account reps. Again, someone always pays for it. I suggest learning and using cost-efficient research methods.

3. When in doubt, ask. This applies to your entire career path. Nearly all disasters in this profession occur because someone assumed. [Insert token Under Siege 2: Dark Territory quote].

4. From the thread I linked above, famed Boaltess Stacita remarked: "don't blow your offer by blowing anything else." Again, self-explanatory. Your character and reputation are far too valuable. Don't let booze bring you down. On the other hand, if your character shows its true colors after a few drinks, by all means, indulge. I'd rather know who to avoid ahead of time.

5. Judging by ATL threads, most firms are cutting back on summer spending. Do not go into your summer associateship with any sense of entitlement. The positive of this rule is to take advantage of the events that your firm puts on.

6. Treat every staff member like you'd treat a corner office partner. This rule again applies throughout your career. The reasons are easy enough: a) staffers have their ears close to the ground, avoid being a story b) they will save your butt when you have a pressing deadline and 1,000 pages to duplicate for that filing. Anecdotally, something as simple as a cup of coffee for a staffer who did a great job of preparing something for me got tremendous mileage.

These are the big ones in my mind. Feel free to add your own.

DE on NPR re SCOTUS Nom

Here.

Rankings that REALLY Matter

The jury's out as to whether USNWR rankings are that big of a deal.

What's in? The only rankings that really matter, of course: The First Annual Party Law School Rankings.

How did dear ol' Berkeley Law do? Seventh - narrowly edged out by UVA and narrowly edging out UM.

Of note: methodology.

Thanks to Anonymous for the tip.

Speaking of Health Insurance . . .

. . . people listen. Full email from DE here, and in the comments.

There is to much in the linked article to summarize, so you'll have to read it for yourself, although I can't resist pointing out (Armen, are you listening?) that the title could be better. Aside from that and the reference to "the grim budget climate" on page three, I'm very pleased; as a whole the document is actually a pretty good reference guide to financial resources at Boalt -- it has, for example, some information about changes to LRAP that were news to me. So, thank you Boalt for sending this along.

Health Insurance with a Twist

I'm sure everyone just got that e-mail about personal info stolen from Tang. I'll repost it in the comments. But I've now had my personal info potentially stolen from UCLA and UCB. Cool.

Sixteen Tons

[Update 5/08/2009 (Patrick): Higher Salaries for UC's New Administrators.]

As a commentator notes in the thread below, it will cost $2,864.68 $4,903 more to attend Boalt next year. But hey, it's always darkest right before it gets even worse, right? Just think: we could be in the class of 2015. What will tuition be then?

Now, that's a load off.