Liveblogging The Bakesale

10:30 AM-- I'm sitting in Donor Lobby taking part in an age-old (I assume) Boalt Hall student group tradition: the Bake Sale. Shameless plug: BJCL will be peddling its wares until 4:30 PM today (9/29) for a dollar an item. I think that price is double what we charged last year, but hey, recession's a bitch.

I thought it might be nice to document this experience for two reasons. 1) It's my last year at Boalt Hall, and the Bake Sale epitomizes so much of what I love and will miss about attending this school. 2) No one besides Patrick has posted anything in weeks, and I have to assume you're getting bored.

10:40 AM-- Awkward encounter with M*ndi. She stopped by to ask if we had e-mailed the faculty and staff about our bakesale. After three years of dealing with various administrative hassles, my first response was a defensive, "I'm not in charge anymore!" Then I realized she was just asking so she could help publicize the event. Thanks, M*ndi!

10:50 AM-- Sure enough, various faculty members saunter up to the table, licking their chops. When I recommend the delicious coconut-chocolate concoction called "Magic Bars," nearly all of them express concern for what the "magic" modifier might indicate. I love Berkeley.

11:10 AM-- So far nearly everyone has donated an additional dollar or so, on top of the item price. "People downtown sure are friendly!" (Three points to anyone who gets that reference.)

11:20-- A student informed me that some other schools do not allow their students to sell homemade goods on campus, for various fascist health reasons. This is what happens in Obama's America! 9/12 Tea Party March! Never forget!

11:30-- A representative of ELQ stopped by to purchase nearly $20 worth of sugary decadence. She asked if that was enough to buy them some positive publicity. I guess it is!

11:45-- It occurs to me that if the member-bakers simply donated the money they spent preparing their caloric concoctions, we would probably have made $40-60 right there. Luckily, I think we're about to soar past that benchmark, and it's not even lunchtime.

12:03-- I'm wondering if the closure of various public spaces in Boalt, combined with the opening of the student center, has reduced traffic flow to the bakesale location. This got me thinking, why not take this show on the road? I bet if we used the baseball game distribution model, we could sell double. Would it trigger any solicitation restrictions to try to sell at Zeb, the Student Center, and North Reading Room?

12:15-- Someone suggested I liveblog from the brownies' perspective. Sorry, but that sounds like a bad horror movie to me. Given this trailer, though, I bet it would do ok!

12:25-- Living Boalt Hall legend B*b B*rring just stopped by. We described all the items in detail. He paused afterward, pointed to the magic bars, and asked, "So... what's the deal with these?"

12:30-- Well, my time manning the table is almost up, and this whole thing has gotten a little too Andy Rooney. But if Rooney's age entitles him to say whatever he wants, I guess we 3L bloggers deserve similar privileges.

I'll miss the Boalt Hall bakesale. It's the perfect example of law school's strange duality. You find yourself unwillingly reliving your childhood while being thrust unwittingly into your career. What better encapsulates that than a lemonade stand funding an academic journal? But I think my favorite thing about the bakesale is its connection with Boalt's people. Where else can you talk at length to staff, faculty, and students from all class levels about things entirely unrelated to law, while simultaneously absorbing the saturated fat from their homemade peanut butter brownies?

Delicious on so many levels.

Ahab's

Today Starbucks rolled out its "Via" instant coffee. I sampled it, but certainly not with an open mind. And sure enough, it taste like...instant coffee. Ever since Howard Schultz returned as CEO, the company has been going in all the wrong directions (except for the whole let's make everything efficient thing, I like that). They gained massive popularity and revenues because people liked their drinks. Or maybe in 1998, it was just cool to invest in Pets.com and spend $4 on 16 ounces of sugar and caffeine with a vague Italian name attached. But now Starbucks is losing revenue because McDonalds offers 24 ounces of sugar and cream, with a hint of coffee, for $2. So what does Starbucks do in response? Sell smoothies and instant coffee.

I'm not a marketing expert, but isn't there some rule in the book of rules that says if you have a good product, you shouldn't expand into related products that will cheapen your brand? Isn't this a bit like if Apple (for those of you in the cult) introduced a $500 windows based laptop? Why do most discernible coffee-drinkers either avoid Starbucks drip or get it begrudgingly? Shouldn't Schultz try to solve THAT dilemma first before trying to take on Jamba Juice and Tasters Choice? How long will shareholders tolerate this type of crap from a company that has never issued dividends?

These are questions I'll ponder while standing in line until the barista picks up the grande cup and writes my drink down without so much as a peep from me. Hint hint Schultz, you should try to learn what your customers want too.

Do it Yourself Job-Making

The WSJ Law Blog reports that a Denver area solo partitioner who generally does smaller-scale criminal work, like drunk-driving and drug-possession representations, will be "spearheading the defense of accused terrorist mastermind Najibullah Zazi." The Denver attorney recently placed an advertisement with the University of Denver law school seeking an unpaid intern to help with legal research.

Boalties, this may be a rare moment of opportunity. Here is your plan of attack:

Step 1. Apply for the position. Sure, he'd prefer someone in Denver, but he's likely to take all the help he can get, don't you think? Be sure to put our school's undeserved reputation to work - who wouldn't want a crazy liberal pinko commie terrorist sympathizer Berkeley student on the case?

Step 2. Track your hours. All of them.

Step 3. When the case ends, when you land paying work, or when the statute of limitations is about to run (whichever comes first) sue the Denver attorney for back pay.

Shazam! Instant paying job. Who knows if it would actually work (and in fact there is a good chance it wouldn't), but I will personally guarantee to anyone who actually dares to try it a "guest intern" spot to blog about their experience at N&B.

2009 OCIP Callbacks (Part Trois)

Bada-BING. We've maxed out the comment capacity on the 2009 OCIP threads for a second time - you folks are on a roll. I have closed discussion on the previous thread, and opened it here.

"You Just Kinda' Wasted My Precious Time, but Don't Think Twice, It's Alright"

Pop quiz: what’s the appropriate number of times to think about a lover who has just walked out your door?

Correct Answer: ONCE.

But Dylan's advice has a corollary: If you know you're leaving, then the time to go is now. See, e.g., "It Ain't Me, Babe." Above the Law reported today that when Sullivan & Cromwell attepted to strong-arm 2L's into accepting their offers within two weeks, the Dean of Harvard's career services told Sullivan that unless it backed off, it could kiss its invitation to recruit at Harvard goodbye. NYU and Yale sent similar messages. Above the Law also suggested a while back that law students should collect and accept their offers -- all of them -- as soon as possible so as to have a full hand of options before making decisions.

Harvard's Dean impressed me, and ATL's advice disgusts me. Boalties: don't hoard offers. If you have more than one opportunity at your door, it's time to start making decisions, because the earlier you decline an offer the more likely it will redound to one of your peers. The same goes for callbacks. If you have fifteen callbacks this year, or even five, start thinking about whether you can do away with some or most of them. This will benefit you (nobody really wants to do that many callbacks), it will benefit the firm (no firm really wants you to jerk them around), and it will benefit your peers (believe me, there are plenty of people who would gladly take any of your callbacks off your hands).

I know that advice can be hard to follow. Law students hate risk, and they hate making decisions, just like law firms. That's why Sullivan tried to clamp down on the timeline. But just because you can get away with something doesn't mean you need to; the temptation to follow ATL's advice is strong, but like most temptation it's worth resisting. To hold six offers open, to attend fifteen callbacks, or to delay your decisions until the last moment NALP allows is to flirt with greed and self-indulgence. Not only that, but it will make you feel bad -- it eats at you to have these decisions hanging over your head, and I promise you that when you do pull the trigger and put OCIP completely behind you, you will feel a thousand times lighter.

Just like a timely breakup.

2009 OCIP Callbacks (Part Deux)

[Update: Just a brief reminder that this thread is also an appropriate place to post government callbacks (e.g., various public defender's offices, or federal positions.]

[Update: if you have been interviewing with law firms and have not yet seen this video ("what do you mean you didn't 'exactly' get in"?) you should. I meant to share it earlier but it slipped my mind.]

___________________________________________

We have come very close to maxing out the comments on the other thread. Please use this one to post your OCIP dings, callbacks, comments, questions, anecdotes, and answers. You will now find the callback/ding list here, but please continue to use the previous guidelines. As before, I will bump this thread to the top of the blog every few days until comments begin to wind down.

Allen Matkins, LA+, SF+
Alston & Bird, AT-, LA-, SV-
Altshuler Berzon, SF+
Arnold & Porter, DC+, LA+/-, SF+
Baker & McKenzie, SV+/-
Baker Botts, DC+, HOU+
Baker Hostetler, DEN+, LA-
Bingham McCutchen, LA+/-, SF+
Briscoe Ivester, SF+
Brownstein Hyatt, DEN+/-, SB-
Cadwalader, DC+/-, NY+
Chadbourne Parke, LA+/-
Chapman & Cutler, SF+/-
Cleary, NY+/-
Cooley Godward, DC+, NY-, SD-, SF+/-, SV+, VA-
Covington & Burling, DC+, SF+/-
Cox Castle, LA+
Crowell & Moring, DC+/-, OC+/-
Curtis Mallet, NY+
Davis Polk, NY+/-, SV+/-
Debevoise & Plimpton, NY+/-
Dechert, DC+, NY+, SV+
Dewey & LeBoeuf, NY+/-
Donahue Gallagher Woods, OAK+/-
Drinker Biddle, SF+/-
Farella Braun, SF+/-
Fenwick & West, SF-, SV+
Filice Brown, OAK+
Fish & Richardson, SV+
Fox Rothschild, LA-, OC-
Freshfields, NY+
Fried Frank, NY+*
Fulbright & Jaworski, LA-*
Gibson Dunn, DC+, DEN-, LA+/-, NY+, OC+, SF+/-, SV+/-
Gibson Robb & Lindh, SF+
Goodwin Procter, BOS+/-, DC+/-, LA+, SF+/-, SV+/-
Gunderson Dettmer, SV+/-
Hanson Bridgett, SF+/-
Harvey Siskind, SF+
Hogan & Hartson, DC+,/- LA+/-, NY+
Holland & Knight, BOS-, SF-
Howrey, LA-, SF+/-, SV-
Hughes Hubbard, LA+/-, NY+/-
Irell & Manella, LA+/-, OC+/-
Ivins Philips & Barker, DC+/-
Jeffer Mangels, LA+/-
Jenner & Block, CHI+
Jones Day, CHI+, DC+, LA+/-, NY-, OC-, SD+/-, SF+/-, SV+/-, TX+
K&L Gates, SEA+
Keker & Van Nest, SF+/-
King & Spaulding, DC-, TX-
Kirkland & Ellis, LA-, SF+, SV+
Knobbe Martens, OC-
Kramer Levin, NY+/-
Latham & Watkins, LA+, OC+, SF+/-, SV+/-
Lief Cabraser, SF+/-
Loeb & Loeb, LA+/-
Manatt Phelps, LA+
Mayer Brown, LA+/-, SV+/-
McDermott, Will & Emery, LA+/-, SV+/-
Milbank Tweed, NY-
Morrison & Foerster, LA+, NY-, SD+, SF+/-, SV+/-
Munger, Tolles & Olson, LA+/-
Nixon Peabody, SF+/-
O'Melveny & Myers, CC+/-, DC+, LA+/-, OC+/-, SF+/-, SV+/-
Paul Hastings, CHI+, DC+, LA+/-, NY+, SD+, SF+/-, SV+
Paul Weiss, NY+/-
Perkins Coie, SF+
Pillsbury, DC+, NY-, SF-
Proskauer Rose, LA+/-, NY+*
Quinn Emanuel, SF+/-, SV+/-
Ropes & Gray, BOS+, CHI+, SF+, SV+
Rutan Tucker, OC+
Remy Thomas, SAC+
Schiff Hardin, DC-
Severson & Werson, SF+
Shartsis Friese, SF+/-
Shearman & Sterling, SF+/-
Sheppard Mullin, CC+, LA+, OC+/-, SF+/-
Sidley Austin, DC+, LA+, SF+
Simpson Thacher, DC-, LA+/-, NY+/-, SV+/-
Skadden Arps, LA+, NY+, SF+, SV+
Starn O'Toole, HI+
Steptoe & Johnson, DC+/-
Stoll Stoll Berne, PDX-
Stradling Yocca, OC+/-
Stroock & Stroock, LA+*
Sullivan & Cromwell, DC-, NY+/-, SV-
Thompson & Knight, TX+/-
Townsend & Townsend, SF+/-
Troutman Sanders, OC+
Wachtell Lipton, NY+/-
Warren & Gunn, SF+/-
Weil Gotshal, NY+, SV+
White & Case, LA+/-, SV+/-
Wildman Harrold, CHI+, LA+
WilmerHale, BOS+/-, DC+/-, LA+/-, NY+/-, SV+/-
Wilson Sonsini, SF+/-, SV+/-
Winston & Strawn, LA+/-, SF+/-

* non-OCI interview.

Mad Men Paging Sterling Cooper

As Barney Frank so aptly pointed out, trying to have a conversation with the extreme Right these days is like trying to argue with a dining room table. But at least dining room tables have decent branding. There's a great post over on culture monster that reveals the socialist and communist origins of the logo for Glenn Beck's 9/12 march against socialism (and other less specific evils):



But the absurdity doesn't stop there. As a lifelong comics aficionado, I was shocked and confused when the Right embraced this strange Joker poster:



What, exactly, do Obama and the clown prince of crime have in common? Is there a giant vat of green Joker Venom beneath DC that I don't know about?

Ok, yes, I know I'm stretching here. These are people whose minds operate in harmony with Sarah Palin's sentence structure. They probably never got past, "The Joker is bad and Obama is bad." If the poster was the mash-up portrait alone, I could live with that. But it doesn't stop with the portrait. Instead, the word SOCIALISM appears directly below The Joker, the most famous anarchist in pop culture history. We're talking about a deranged mass-murdering clown who worships chaos, here. If there's one thing he would be completely and totally against, it's socialism. Couldn't they have used an evil Robin Hood or something?



I'm not naive enough to think arguments actually have to make sense in order to convince people, but it does help to consider your branding. If these people expect to compete in the next election, they better get Don Draper on the line.

Is Google Flipping Right Past Bad PR?

Just saw a NYT article about a new google news product called Fast Flip. (Article here, Fast Flip site here.) Basically, Google strips the bulky packaging from news websites, catalogues them as images, and allows readers to flip through them in a manner similar to a conventional newspaper. Clicking on story's image takes readers to the host's site and, of course, its attendant advertising.

Funny thing, though, is that I couldn't find anything in Fast Flip about any of the many lawsuits currently pending against Google . . .

Two Cold-Calls and a Funeral (of Sorts)

Week 5 and all is well among the 1Ls. Sure, some of us are starting to wilt a little from the new workload (or mysteriously disappear*) but Fall Break is sure to put a little spunk back into our step!



*As in the intriguing case of Prof. L*vy’s torts class last week…

Professor: Hmm, let me call on someone who hasn’t spoken yet. Is _______ here?

[Awkward silence]

Student #1: Uhh, professor? That guy used to sit here. I... I don't see him around anymore.

Professor: Oh, well in that case, how about _______?

[Another awkward silence]

Student #2: She hasn't been here since week 2.

At which point we collectively erupted into nervous-slash-mildly-disturbed laughter. Personally, I'd like to think those kids didn't call it quits - but were giving us an expert-level demonstration of The Marvin.

Everyone's a Winner*

Over the weekend the New York Times ran an article about lawyers and online social media like Facebook and Twitter. The article explains something that should be obvious: trial lawyers who blog or tweet about their judge are asking for trouble, as is the attorney whose facebook page suggests a week of partying, after the judge granted a continuance for a death in the attorney's family. (Seriously. That happened. And now the guy is all over the New York Times.)

The article implied,correctly, that judges play a substantial role in regulating attorney conduct. It reminded me of three questions from a Wall Street Journal Law Blog post two years ago -- questions law school hasn't answered for me:

• Why is a legal malpractice case so much harder to make out than a medical malpractice case?
• Why is the attorney-client privilege the oldest and most jealously protected of all the professional privileges?
• Why are lawyers the only American profession to be truly and completely self-regulated?

*Click the title of this post for an explanation.

867-5309

We talked earlier this week about a thread for today's clerkship calls - here it is. Your tales, trials, and tribulations are particularly welcome.

Update: if you haven't read The Rat Race: Insider Advice on Landing Judicial Clerkships (pdf) by Judge Aldisert and two former clerks, now is not too late. Much of the article is devoted to how to land an interview in the first place, but the Judge also explains how his chambers goes through the selection process, what makes or breaks a telephone call, and how to seal the deal should you be fortunate enough to land an in-person interview. Of course, not all chambers are the same, but at a minimum the article marks a good place to begin.

Best of luck to all!

Tales from Hotel Durant – Four (and Twenty) Rooms

Hey All,

I'm Maude. First time blogger, long-time snarky bitch. Transition should be seamless. . .

Commentators have been asking for a “lighter-side” of the 2009 OCIP string. There’s a suggestion that perhaps N&B can provide a place where we can all regale each other (anonymously, of course) with tales of awkward exchanges in the hallways and across the interview table. Never one to disappoint, I’ve offered to contribute the first tale. Warning: it requires back-story.

I often compare the entire atmosphere over at 2600 Durant during this time of year as not unlike a brothel. Dozens of slightly-annoyed, slightly-nervous, but mostly-dazed 20-somethings line up in a hallway, and knock at a pre-designated bedroom door to present any and every orifice before the mercy of whoever is on the other side. Sure, sometimes it’s gentle, pleasant, even fun. Other times, it’s purely perfunctory. And of course, occasionally it can be downright painful – though it never lasts much longer than 20 minutes.

Normally, this analogy works fine for me. Hell, it even kinda put me into a light and jovial mood before entering a room. “Hello ladies & gentlemen, what’s your fancy? I can do it all!” Sometime in the midst of phase one, I was ending what had been a relatively pleasant and only occasionally awkward session/interview with two attractive young men from Firm X. As I got up to leave, they asked whether I had many others to see that day. I answered “Yes. I like to call it ‘Rinse & Repeat.’”

. . .

Awkward silence, nervous chuckles, followed by closing door and rushing realization of what “rinse & repeat” could also mean in the hotel/brothel setting. Suffice it to say, that interview ended with a callback.

So feel free to post your awkward, hilarious, or otherwise memerable experiences. No need to be crude, just because I went there . . .

An OCIP Question for Savvy 2L's

This year at OCIP even the tax firm Ivins, Phillips & Barker's interview slots filled during open signups. So, why is Latham & Watkins now wide-open for open signup interviews with almost every office (DY, NY, LA, OC, and SF)? Did Latham add more interviewers? Are Boalties throwing in the towel at OCIP? Do 2L's really prefer the tax?

(Bitter 3L's or deferred Latham associates, please feel free to take a stab at this one, too.)

How to Act on Friday, September 11th

Normally.

No overjoyed, excited countenances.
No walking dejectedly like the world's losiest losers.
No nervous smiles to others you know are applying for clerkships.
No "Hey, Macarena" ring tones during class.
No rushing out of class to answer silently vibrating iPhones.
No calling chambers outside Zeb or in the new courtyard.*
No looking happy. No looking miserable. No looking anything.

The morning that judges make their calls is the biggest test for law school culture. Boalt was quickly knocked out of Above the Law's "Douchiest Law School" tournament. Let's not make a surprise comeback now.

* (Go to the parking lot behind Boalt. Or to the Anthropology Department.)

Paging Kevin Smith: Please Give Boalties an OSCAR Win!

It's a fine Labor Day Weekend, I've got a horrendous mix of MJ and Blondie on the stereo, and I'm working my way thorough that second pot of coffee. Yep. OSCAR applications are due today.

I have five thoughts, after which I will open up the comments for discussion.

1. OSCAR's speed today. Grr. I have to forcibly restrain myself from grabbing and shaking my computer monitor like a stuck vending machine. My experience is that the longer I'm in OSCAR, the slower the thing seems to get. Perhaps the system builds a long cumbersome log of each session history, perhaps it hates me, but at any rate I've found that logging out, closing my browser, opening it back up, and logging back in speeds things up. I hope that helps someone else. (See? Boalties are collegial - don't let the OCIP thread lead you astray.)
2. The Kevin Smith label. It refers to this. Don't say I never give freebies.
3. The online cover letter editor. I'd like a head count of the number of people who have been screwed over by the online letter editor - if you don't "Update Application" before you submit it, it will ignore your edits. All of them. My sincerest apologies to the Seattle judge and clerks who will read the words, "I understand the commitment you a clerkship entails" and wonder: "What on earth does this kid understand at all?" I really am very competent, I promise.
4. Some positive press for the CDO and FSU. I added two new applications yesterday afternoon, and found that today that someone had attached my letters of recommendation. I absolutely did not deserve that - I should have added those judges last week, and all I can say to whomever logged into OSCAR on a holiday to attach my letters is, "THANK you. I am very grateful."
5. The worst part is nearly behind us. The nine month saga of networking sessions, "[Clerkship Update]" emails, proofreading, self-inflicted degradation over grades ("why, why, why do my peers have to b so much smarter than me?"), letter of recommendation requests, and cog-like engagement with the rat race of clerkship hiring machinery are almost over . . .

. . . GOOD LUCK TO ALL!!!

Oompa-Loompa Ant Farm Boalt!

Check out:

• Time lapse video of the Boalt Hall South Edition from December 2008 through August 2009, here.
• Video response to this post, set to Howlin' Wolf here.

I've watched that last one about six times - something clearly has me transfixed. Could be the blues, could be the Oompa-Loompa ant-dance theme, could be because I'm weird, or it could be some combination of the three. But I love it!

Hat tip to Boalt's best dressed Associate Dean and ALR Professor Extraordinaire - thank you from all for putting this together.

2009 OCIP Callbacks

[We are very close to the comments limit on this thread, so I have closed it. (Google Blogger goes nuts and tries to ruin our lives when the max number is hit. Seriously.) Please use this thread to post your callbacks, dings, OCIP-related questions, and answers.]

---------------------

This is the 2009 OCIP callback thread. If you are unsure about what that might mean, look here, and here.

Still unsure? Here is a short explanation: people seem to think it's helpful to learn whether firms are calling back as soon as possible. This thread is designed to satiate that obsessive desire (hey, I had it too) by publicly disseminating that information as quickly as possible. To make it work, everybody has to play -- if you get a callback, post that information anonymously into the comments. Please format it like this:

[Firm Name], [Firm City], [+/-]

+ means you got a callback.
- means you did not get a callback.

Here is a longer explanation:

(a) When you get a callback or a ding (ding = a rejection), look to see if that information has been included in the main post. If not, post it into the comments using the following format: Firm Name, City, + or - to indicate offer or ding respectively.

(b) I will move your information into the main body of the thread. After adding the information, I will delete comments that state only an offer or a ding. I will also delete comments that I find counterproductive to a supportive, positive OCI process for everyone. I know that bothers people sometimes, but I'll offer a trump card - I will not delete any comment posted under your full, real name.

(c) I will keep comments that offer something substantive, ask or answer a question, or crack me up with jaded cynicism.

Please pay attention to (a), folks. The CDO anticipates more than 5,000 interviews during the next two weeks. Although I plan to stay on my toes, it will be magnificently unhelpful if you flood the comments with results that are cryptic, ambiguous, or already posted. Spare me that, if you can.

On a policy note, Armen's remarks from four years ago are relevant: if this thread makes you feel anxious or uncomfortable, just click on by. You'll miss very little of substance, and you'll spare yourself a few weeks of fractious discontent. If you find the thread useful that's great, but you are likely kidding yourself: you will learn nothing here about your callbacks that wasn't going to come to you by phone or mail, anyway. Lastly, while I can't claim to know all of the class of 2011, those I have met are beyond talented; I continue to wonder on a near-daily basis how I landed among such a talented and personable group of human beings -- you are going to blow this thing out of the water!

Here are the callbacks.

Won't Somebody Think of the Children

Just saw this post on Leiter about a proposed walkout by UC faculty on 9/24 because . . . drum roll please.

Forced furloughs on days when they're not teaching or holding office hours. This, the fine academics consider an unacceptable violation of their umm well I'm not sure what it's a violation of, but they'll be damned if they have to give a talk on Renaissance art in Florence and not get paid by the UC for it. Meanwhile, students with stabbing wounds from the years of mugging by the Legislature and the Regents will now be forced to take that final step and teach themselves in September--instead of the usual December.

Memo to faculty: you look silly. It's something like complaining about a no smoking rule because without a pipe in your mouth, how else will you look prestigious? California is leading the nation in jobless claims, a nasty brushfire is exposing the dearth of resources that actually save lives, and you're complaining about WHEN you have to take furloughs? But to top it off, the complaint is that you can't screw over students to make a statement when taking your furloughs? THAT is your beef? Two words come to mind.

Two Articles on the Entry Level Legal Market

This comment from the thread below deserves a stand-alone post:

John Steele has left a new comment on your post "2009 OCIP Callbacks":

Although these two pieces by Bill Henderson are sobering reading, if you are interested in the economics of law school and how the changing economy might affect legal education, you will want to read them:

• Drawing the Right Lessons from the Bleak Entry-Level Legal Job Market.
• The New Math of Legal Education [pdf].

-John Steele