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!

What About the 1L's?

This thread is highly related to the one immediately below, but probably worth keeping distinct. It solicits alumni who are on or have an inside angle with their firm's hiring committee, and asks: what about the 1L's? How, if at all, do you think your firm will adjust its hiring plan for this fall? How do you think 2009's 2L applicants to your firm will fare in comparison to 2L's from 2008?

There is a lot of gloom-and-doom information out there, and the last six months on ATL and related sites have seen an incredible development of what I suppose is called "conventional wisdom." While conventional wisdom (a phrase which may or may not be an oxymoron) is useful, I'd like to add something concrete to the mountains of speculation, but tugging on the coats of our alumni for a moment.

I think alumi thoughts would be particularly helpful to the class of 2011. The 1L's have been through a lot in the last year: twelve months ago they were still deciding to go to law school, six months ago they were figuring out what a "holding" is and whether they should join a journal, two months ago they were in full-panic mode for Spring OCIP and PIPS Day. Understandably, for each of these decisions they relied heavily on others' advice.

Fall OCIP is a similarly monumental and advice-driven affair. It's close enough that at least some firms must be thinking about their needs -- if you have the ability, please consider giving some much-needed context to the class of 2011's next staggering and totally foreign decision.

New Space Deathmatch: CLR v. Board of Advocates

There are a lot of changes for Boalt student groups recently, with the exodus from Simon Hall, the new affinity group oasis/ghetto on the third floor, and the new basement space. I'm creating a series of posts to identify the big winners of this change--as well as those getting the shaft. The first battle royale: CLR versus Board of Advocates.

Winner: California Law Review
Law review has fallen upon some hard times. I'm not talking about academic integrity. I'm talking about respect. CLR used to be the preeminent student activity at Boalt; membership was mandatory for top students. Not so much these days. Not only is there little correlation between grades and membership, but law review is lost among the thicket of "other" journals--of which Berkeley publishes an obscene amount. (On the website's alphabetical list of journals, CLR is eleventh). More so than at any other law school, specialized journals compete with law review for student talent. Why be a primary-editing grunt when you can be EIC of BJ*L instead?

The point of all this is that CLR's new space is important. It's not that CLR needs a separate suite (with its own entrance!). It's a sign that Berkeley really sees CLR as its flagship publication, and is willing to treat it accordingly.

Loser: Board of Advocates
Who? Just kidding. These days, moot court is just as respected by judges, lawyers, and academics as law review--and maybe more so. In terms of prestigious student activities, Board of Advocates is right up there with CLR. And I don't see anyone else bringing SCOTUS justices to Berkeley any time soon. Congrats, Board overseers!

Which makes it a little regrettable that Board of Advocates drew such a losing hand from the space deck. Where are they, exactly? I think they're still in some crummy office on the 3rd floor maze, but I'm not really sure. They're isolated from other student groups both spacially and symbolically. Certainly they deserve more. It's true that they're getting a new moot courtroom in Room 140. But this is less a reward than a consolation prize for the insult of having to use Booth Auditorium in the past. And besides, Room 140 is really just a glorified classroom.

Proof that Law Reviews Serve a Useful Purpose

For all of you wondering whether CLR is actually for you, I give you this. As the coming generation of CLRers, I only hope that you can be the change you want to see in the world, and fill CLR with articles that people actually want to read.

CLR vs. Lysol

I can certainly appreciate that anxiety/anticipation that is building up in rising 2Ls regarding CLR. But I want to offer this word of caution, echoed in years past by my co-blogger Tom Fletcher. It's a great feeling to know that you are on Boalt's flagship journal, but it's not the end of the world if you're not. Frankly, it opens up your calendar to do more, exciting things. I think journal work is very useful. Thankfully, Boalt has plenty of opportunity for everyone to gain exposure to that work, sometimes in very different contexts.

In sum, I know the comments are going to turn into a clusterf*ck with dejected, self-loathing overachievers actually coming to grips that they are not on CLR. But cheer up. It doesn't hurt you in OCIP, and it's not a magic ticket that you need to get punched on your way to clerkships.

It is all about the fighting...or negotiating.

Outside Competition tryouts for Boalt's Moot Court, Trial and ADR teams begin next week. All of these programs are excellent ways to boost your skills, make close friends, and kick the crap out of Hastings (hopefully). It is also an excellent resume builder---employers value Moot Court experience highly.

For information, seek out the flyers outside 377 Boalt or contact boaltadvocates@gmail.com.

***Edit: See "BOA" post below for info as well.***

Two Lunch Break Questions

When there's nothing good on TV at lunch, I get to reading (oh no!). Today, I got to wondering too:

1. Why hasn't the California Law Review updated its website? Here's the current issue. Sadly, no links to the articles. If you don't link to it, no one can read it folks...

2. But what's this? A patent article! Cool! Unfortunately, "Tamiflu, the Takings Clause, and Compulsory Licenses: An Exploration of the Government's Options for Accessing Medical Patents" was a disappointing read (I went on to Westlaw to pull a copy). This typo caused a chuckle: "Through such licenses, the government can infringe on and manufacture a patent for as long as necessary." Yes, thousands of beribboned documents for all!

But what seemed odd was that the author didn't explore the most sensible way for the government to use a patent: just negotiate a license. The article was instead premised on the government having to take the patent owner's intellectual property rights to be able to manufacture a medicine. My biggest concern: "taking" medical patents will destroy any incentive to do medical research. Yes, in this round, we get free Tamiflu. But next time that avian flu (or staph, or whatever) evolves a resistance to Tamiflu, there will be nothing to combat it because no one believed that they could recoup their costs by doing vaccine research. In my opinion, the article takes a dangerous approach by focusing only on compulsory licensing and takings as ways for the government to interact with patent holders.

Ok, I'll add a third thought. For anyone interested in the Eleventh Amendment issue and public university immunity, see this cert petition.

Back to work!

Unclassy Classes

Open thread about classes and related issues for 1, 2, and 3Ls, per request.

-- Incoming Boalties: "So, like, do I have to like know everything about everything?"

-- Rising 2Ls: "CLR, CLR, CLR, CLR, CLR..."

-- Rising 3Ls: "We're all top 10%."

OK, this is not at all funny.

A Blog Entry About Law Review Article Titles: An Exercise In Frivolity

Things have gotten a little heated on N&B recently, so I thought I'd brighten the mood with a post we could all have a little fun with... PLUS, bonus finals period procrastination!

I've been doing some research for a paper, and I keep stumbling across unintentionally hilarious law review article titles, almost uniformally abusing the colon as a punctuation mark. Today, for example, I stumbled across 77 Wash. L. R. 1035, better known as "The Socio-Legal Acceptance of New Technologies: A Close Look At Artificial Insemination." This is funny on a few levels, from the juvenile (artificial insemination. hehe.) to the collegiate (a "close look" at artificial insemination... ewww. no thanks.) to the absurd (think of how what precedes the colon relates to what follows).

In any case, I invite our dear readers to submit their favorite law review article titles, preferably but not necessarily involving the colon. In fact, I'll make a contest of it: I'll buy the poster of the winning entry a beverage of his or her choice at the bar review of his or her choice. Entries can range from the oddly funny (see above) to the more clever funny (see "Taking Taking Rights Seriously Seriously" 52 NYU L. Rev. 1265 (1977). Please try to keep them funny funny though, seriously seriously.

And yes, an ancillary humorous benefit of this post was to be able to employ the word colon as many times as possible.

CLR and Other Journals

If you would like background, please visit the journal pages at Boalt. Membership is open to every 1L for all the journals except the California Law Review. At the end of 1L year, there is a writing competition that determines membership to CLR. Grades are not considered.

OCIPin' on the Dock of the Bay

Open thread on the topic on the minds of most rising 2Ls (not me, the topic on my mind is the upcoming hockey season). I'll periodically republish this, to keep it on top. But to get things started, I'm dying to hear stories from 3Ls about how a firm came across in the interviews compares to how it was/is during your summer associateship. The potential jump in first year (and summer associate) salaries in the big 5 markets [link to be added later]. Firms to avoid, firms not to miss, etc. Yada yada yada. As I said, I'll periodically update as comments dictate.

UPDATE I: As promised, I now have cause to move this up with a few thoughts of my own. Yesterday at the LA Young Alumni shindig at the Standard Hotel I met an associate from this firm. The scoop: He's argued motions, manages an entire case, etc. And I quote: "It's better than doc review." And therein lies an important distinction that I want to draw between firms. Do you want associates to be your worker bees that go through documents for a year or two or three? Do you want them to work closely with partners on cases? Somewhere in between? Is it really true that people who work at MoFo (from partners on down) are always happy? That's all for now.

UPDATE II: Just wanted to move this post up in honor of phase I bidding and the B-line being down and out for the count.

A Moment for Self-indulgence

I got my official rejection letter from CLR today. It was sad, but I was expecting it given the rumors that have bandied about these august blog posts (ooh, a pun!). I found the letter to be nice; they explained the large volume of submissions, the other ways in the future we, the rejectees, might join, and they closed with Sincerely Yours. And then they didn't sign it.

I figure they had 150 letters to send. I once sent a letter to every incoming freshman in my capacity as student president. I signed my name on each one and wrote their names on the top of each. But hey, they're busy so I won't begrudge them. Much.

I wrote my note on what I perceived to be the ratcheting effect of the cruel and unusual punishment clause - namely, that with every decision that something is cruel and unusual, the set of punishments is irreversibly restricted. I then argued that the failure to admonish the lower court set a precedent for lower courts to find things cruel and unusual and force the SC to reverse them, instead of consistently ruling for the state and letting the SC make the cruel and unusual finding. Basically, this will increase the number of cases the SC will have to hear, and hence create more opportunities to restrict the set.

Ok, so maybe it was a little wonky and hard to explain. Looking at it now, I wonder if it even makes any sense. I think it does, but maybe I should never have used the word "set."

Well, so it goes. I shall have to find other worthy causes for what faculties I possess. Best wishes to all who made it (admittedly, I will be laughing at you next week while I vacation and you likely cite check), and solidarity to those who did not.

Calcium Lime Rust (remover)

Open thread dedicated to the wonderful cleaning power of CLR. Or the other CLR I suppose.

Let My People Go

Instead of finishing CLR or maybe packing (neither of which have been completed), I fixed my sights on an LA times story on an impending parting of the Red Sea with the exodus of junior officers (O-3 and below). I'm no expert so I can't opine on the logistics of all this, but it's clear that the all the branches of the military rest their Officers' Corps on the backs of captains, who are most likely to leave following the end of their initial commitments.

More striking is the reason for the not fight but flight decisions. The last line of the article, quoting Capt. Tuohey, a Harvard grad and a Cambridge MA, eerily sums it up:

"What's the end point?" he asked. "When do you declare victory?"

Let the implications of that sink in for a second. These aren't some Berkeley vegans shooting the shit at Peet's (no offense to my vegan brothers and sisters, I'm just trying to draw a distinction). These are the most important leaders of our military who see no end in sight, or at least philosophically find the prospects of a continued war on terror unfulfilling. Obviously this is bad news given that we are in the middle of a war in Afghanistan and Iraq (and let's not let the theatrics of self-governance in either fool us into a lull that we're in anything but war). At the same time, might we reach a point in the near future where the Administration (at whatever level) will be forced to tip its hands and admit that we can't possibly fight a war against terror as a concept to its fruition? (If for no other reason than to ensure that we have enough battle-hardened junior officers in place to at least reach some sort of a face-saving conclusion in these initial battles of the war.)

Searching For Boaltie Blogger

When I created this site only boalt.org hosted any blogs to speak of that were written or related to the school. Now as I've rearranged the blogroll, you can see there are plenty of coboalts who author blogs on various topics. If there any others (including incoming 1Ls who have blogs) please let me know.

On a sidenote, while I violently agree with everything Earl says about the filibuster below, I think he's slightly ahead of me on the CLR competition. I just finished reading the syllabus. There's not much more is there?

Friday the 13th

What a day! Let me tell you, I don't know what's worse, the puking in the afternoon or the CLR write on packet. More accurately, puking in the afternoon after seeing some weirdo walking in the street and turning to **** and saying, "Hey now I can taste that breakfast we had." Karma's a bitch. CLR write-on looks like a bitch and a half.

A 2L-2L sign of the Apocalypse?

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore...

Whether to write on for CLR, or tell a story about that chick named Lenore.

If you're in a similar dilemma, please note that De Novo is hosting a symposium on law reviews...day 1 is devoted to alternatives to law review.

A Review Derci?

At De Novo we (and by we I mean co-blogger PG) are planning a symposium on joining your respective school's law review. Please read her post and offer any submissions you may have. If there's anything particular about CLR that should be shared with the general Boalt community you can contact me or just post here.