Your Own Worst Enemy Has Come to Town (She’s that Lady in the Back Row)
Update [April 02, 2009]: I note below that this post is based on second hand informaiton, and I ask to be corrected where I err, instead of insulted. After fielding a bit of both, I'm in a position to offer some clarification.
First, (in response to Dan in comments) I did attend the Brruuuuuuuce show, and it was awesome. Best concert of my life, hands down.
Second, our own worst enemy isn't lady in the back row after all (I'll leave you to speculate where that enemy is sitting). The lady in the back row is Petra Pasternak who reports on behalf of Cal Law, which is a subsidiary of American Lawyer. She wrote this item after attending the Zeughauser career event yesterday, which she found notice of on Boalt's web site. She called the career services office to check if she could attend, and was given directions. She was not informed when she called that the portions of the event would be confidential, and she arrived to the event a few minutes late, so if there was discussion about the event being confidential, she missed out on that.
Third, just to be clear, there was discussion at the event itself about confidentiality, and assurances that it would remain so. Students were told that the event would not be taped or recorded, and students were encouraged to identify their firms by name. I'd be very, very irritated if I relied upon that representation to share information about my firm, only to learn that the school had invited the press. That, essentially, is the thrust of the post.
Lastly, while the article done sensitively and well (no harm, no foul, right?), but as a commentator notes below, it also undercuts the tendency to share information -- both for students and for professionals like Zeughauser. Can we keep the press out of a public school? No. Should we even want that? No. But could we do a better job of tailoring our candor to suit our environment? I think the answer is yes -- especially if we are giving reporters driving directions to our talks. What, precisely, was the rationale behind inviting a reporter while promising not to record the event? If there wasn't a rationale, why not?
------------------------
The story that follows comes to me secondhand, and while I belive every word is accurate I could be mistaken. If so, don't yell at me. Correct me.
Apparently yesterday’s CDO lunch talk about firm stability in this economy came prefaced with assurances that the discussion would not be taped, that the conversation would be confidential, and that students should be candid the speaker. Students were encouraged to share the names of their firms, and the details of the changes to their summer programs, and to ask questions like, "Will my firm make it, or not?"
Sounds pretty cozy -- sounds pretty much like that chill Boalt community we read about in the admissions packet, right? It might have been, except that the talk was infiltrated by a reporter from American Lawyer, who sat through the entire presentation in all of its candid glory, then sought one-on-one interviews with students after the presentation.
I have every reason to believe this story is true. If it is, it seems like one of two things happened: the CDO failed to make clear the special way in which it used the word “confidential,” or the CDO was hoodwinked by a cagy reporter. My guess is it's the latter, and to be fair it must hard for them to prevent this kind of thing. If we can't crack down on the pill snorters from the men's restrooms around here (see Anonymous at 2:42 p.m.), how can we expect to exclude a highly motivated journalist from a crowded lecture hall?
Either way is a huge oops and a bad deal all the way around. I’d be physically ill if the next American Lawyer qotes Boalt students on the instability of any particular firm. Especially if I were the only Boaltie headed to that firm.
-----------------------------
*Yes, this story is real. Yes, I know it's April 01.
First, (in response to Dan in comments) I did attend the Brruuuuuuuce show, and it was awesome. Best concert of my life, hands down.
Second, our own worst enemy isn't lady in the back row after all (I'll leave you to speculate where that enemy is sitting). The lady in the back row is Petra Pasternak who reports on behalf of Cal Law, which is a subsidiary of American Lawyer. She wrote this item after attending the Zeughauser career event yesterday, which she found notice of on Boalt's web site. She called the career services office to check if she could attend, and was given directions. She was not informed when she called that the portions of the event would be confidential, and she arrived to the event a few minutes late, so if there was discussion about the event being confidential, she missed out on that.
Third, just to be clear, there was discussion at the event itself about confidentiality, and assurances that it would remain so. Students were told that the event would not be taped or recorded, and students were encouraged to identify their firms by name. I'd be very, very irritated if I relied upon that representation to share information about my firm, only to learn that the school had invited the press. That, essentially, is the thrust of the post.
Lastly, while the article done sensitively and well (no harm, no foul, right?), but as a commentator notes below, it also undercuts the tendency to share information -- both for students and for professionals like Zeughauser. Can we keep the press out of a public school? No. Should we even want that? No. But could we do a better job of tailoring our candor to suit our environment? I think the answer is yes -- especially if we are giving reporters driving directions to our talks. What, precisely, was the rationale behind inviting a reporter while promising not to record the event? If there wasn't a rationale, why not?
------------------------
The story that follows comes to me secondhand, and while I belive every word is accurate I could be mistaken. If so, don't yell at me. Correct me.
Apparently yesterday’s CDO lunch talk about firm stability in this economy came prefaced with assurances that the discussion would not be taped, that the conversation would be confidential, and that students should be candid the speaker. Students were encouraged to share the names of their firms, and the details of the changes to their summer programs, and to ask questions like, "Will my firm make it, or not?"
Sounds pretty cozy -- sounds pretty much like that chill Boalt community we read about in the admissions packet, right? It might have been, except that the talk was infiltrated by a reporter from American Lawyer, who sat through the entire presentation in all of its candid glory, then sought one-on-one interviews with students after the presentation.
I have every reason to believe this story is true. If it is, it seems like one of two things happened: the CDO failed to make clear the special way in which it used the word “confidential,” or the CDO was hoodwinked by a cagy reporter. My guess is it's the latter, and to be fair it must hard for them to prevent this kind of thing. If we can't crack down on the pill snorters from the men's restrooms around here (see Anonymous at 2:42 p.m.), how can we expect to exclude a highly motivated journalist from a crowded lecture hall?
Either way is a huge oops and a bad deal all the way around. I’d be physically ill if the next American Lawyer qotes Boalt students on the instability of any particular firm. Especially if I were the only Boaltie headed to that firm.
-----------------------------
*Yes, this story is real. Yes, I know it's April 01.
posted by Patrick Bageant at 2:22 PM
11 Comments:
Link to the article?
http://theshark.typepad.com/weblog/2009/04/tips-tricks-and-reasons-to-be-optimistic-its-only-up-from-here.html
Sad story for such a lovely title...
Bruuuuuuuuce. Anyone going tonight?
for those who were there, was he really as optimistic as the article makes it seem?
seriously, should we trust the CDO anymore given the epic failure that corporate law models, encouraged by top law schools through OCI programs, have proven themselves to be? take it for what it's worth from a 3L: find your own job. make your own connections. do NOT be silly enough to rely on the arbitrary process of OCIP.
7:07 makes it sound so simple. Take it from someone with a name, you should look for jobs from every possible source, including OCIP.
That article isn't really revealing of what was said. What's the big deal?
I swear Patrick, sometimes you're such a drama queen.
"The atticle . . . the article . . . ."
What article???? The Shark blog link someone posted above? That, genius, is a blog article written by anther student, and ought not be confused with American Lawyer Magazine.
If drama queens are people whose ears perk when the CDO promises confidentiality and then encourages students to publicly share information about their firm's health and viability -- all American Lawyer sits back and soaks it in -- then yeah, I'm a drama queen.
If thats what happened, it's kind of a big deal. It'd be sort of DE promising confidentiality and then encouraging faculty to speak candidly about Boalt's strengths and weaknesses . . . and then finding out later that me and my laptop were sitting in the back of the room.
Wow, Patrick. Why don't you cry about it?
Anyone who would volunteer confidential information in a large lunchtime presentation is a fool. The reporter being there is disappointing, but in the age of ATL, no one should be sharing any firm information that shouldn't get out to the general public.
I don't understand why Patrick is a drama queen for complaining about this.
I'll admit I'm a bit confused about what went on and wasn't there. A Google search of the author of The Shark article shows that Petra Paternak is a reporter for Incisive Media which publishes law.com. I might be wrong and perhaps she has since gone back to law school, but it's not clear that this article was written by a student.
If an outside reporter was INVITED to the meeting or if the CDO was AWARE that a reporter was present and they still said the discussion would be confidential, then it IS creepy.
That doesn't, of course, detract from the foolishness of anyone who gave TMI in a public forum with 150 people. Foolishness and creepiness are not mutually exclusive.
Post a Comment
<< Home