The Legal Haves and Have-Nots (A Rant)

Cameron Stracher had an interesting article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, Law School by Default. I learned some of the lessons Mr. Stracher outlines -- the hard way. One of my law professors used to say about the losing side in the cases that we studied - "What did they gain?" -- the answer, "Experience."

Mr. Stracher writes:

The legal profession is really two professions: the elite lawyers and everyone else. Most of the former start out at big law firms. Many of the latter never find gainful legal employment. Instead, they work at jobs that might be characterized as "quasi-legal": paralegals, clerks, administrators, doing work for which they probably never needed a J.D.

Although hard data about the nature of these jobs are difficult to come by (and rely on self-reporting, which is inherently unreliable), the mean salary for graduates of top 10 law schools is $135,000 while it is $60,000 for "tier three" schools. It's certainly possible that tier-three graduates tend to gravitate toward lower-paying public-interest and government jobs, but this lower salary may also reflect the nonlegal nature of many of these jobs and the fact that these graduates are settling for anything that will pay the bills.

At $38,000 a year for law school, plus living expenses, law-school graduates certainly have a lot of debt ($60,000 on average, upon graduation).

When I made the decision to go to Law School I was working for a supplier for one of the big three automakers. I had tried for years to get hired direct by one of the large auto companies but they were downsizing their white-collar workers and outsourcing everything. I was smart, and capable enough, but it was a real boy's network and I wasn't getting anywhere. In addition, I was past 30 and I figured if I was going to make a career change - it was now or never.

I didn't know anyone who worked in the law. My whole family, and everyone else that I knew worked in some capacity in the auto industry. I had an undergraduate degree in Art (which may say something about my general practical decision making). In considering which direction to go, I decided to take the LSAT (Law School Admission Test). I scored in the 94th percentile -- now I generally test well but that was better than ever I expected -- so I took it as a sign that I was meant to go to law school. But, I took the plunge without really looking into the pool.

Relatively early on I heard stories about graduates who couldn't find work, but like most of my fellow students, I dismissed them by reasoning that they probably weren't as determined or resourceful as I was. I had to be self-supporting so I worked full-time through the first two years of law school, and went to school from 6 to 10 every evening. I worked hard, but I was not at the top of my class, I think I ranked about 13 out of 60 after the first year, and I graduated clinging to a B average. The thing about law school is -- everyone is exceptionally smart and hardworking, so the competition is very stiff even if you're in a tier 3 school.

In my last year of law school I stayed in close touch with the placement office, but there were few recruiters. I graduated without any real job prospects and spent the summer studying for the bar exam, working as a writing assistant for a law school professor who was working on a legal textbook on elder law, and doing grunt work for a divorce lawyer. For my first job after passing the bar exam, I went to work for a temp agency who promptly placed me as a paralegal.

Now there's nothing wrong with being a paralegal, but I certainly didn't need a J.D. to do it. I spent the next several months reading voluminous deposition transcripts and writing slightly less voluminous summaries for a mid-sized personal injury defense firm that represented auto-companies in suits involving injuries and deaths to children involving airbags (which was a big thing in the news at that time).

It basically became clear, that if I wanted to work as a lawyer I was going to be self-employed. That was something I had never expected. I'm not a business person (afterall I was an undergraduate art major). I've been told by many lawyers that it takes 10 years of practice to begin making any money -- and I'm about 8 years in now. I spend a tremendous amount of time worrying -- even obsessing -- over money. Not about becoming rich, which seems so remote it doesn't really cross my mind -- but merely with keeping enough money coming in to cover what's going out. Often it feels like climbing up a down-escalator. And, as to student loans -- although I try not to think about it -- I expect to be paying them out of my social security.

And, as if all of that weren't enough, coupled with the public perception that lawyers are in the money, there is a general belief that lawyers are -- well let's say, not very honest. And yet, the profession polices itself in a way that really no other profession does (at least none that I can think of). I don't know a single lawyer who hasn't had to spend many hours answering specious complaints from clients who were merely unhappy with the result they received in court and filed a complaint with the state grievance commission. And, if a lawyer fails to answer a complaint - no matter how baseless - that failure in itself is a professional ethics violation. Criminal law in particular is noted for frequent grievances because when criminal defendants end up in prison they have nothing better to do than file complaints against their lawyer. And, of course, the taxpayers generously provide every prison with a law library. Further, if after an investigation any complaint is found to be valid -- ie, a lawyer co-mingled funds, missed a filing date, etc. -- the news of it (along with the imposed punishment - suspension, chastisement, disbarment) is published in the bar journal which goes out monthly to every lawyer in the state (there's no such thing as a private disgrace). Okay, well enough of that - I'm depressing myself.

Not that I'm saying there are no rewards to being a lawyer. There is after all -- experience.

And Now For Something Truly Frivolous . . .

In 1964, Audrey Hepburn sported this milliner's dream as Eliza Doolittle attending the races at Ascot in "My Fair Lady." I foolishly thought that it was just a costume exaggerated for dramatic effect.


Wrong.



Millinery may be virtually dead in the rest of the world -- but at Ascot,

Millinery -- the art of ribbons, feathers, and bows

and other fancy things -- lives.




In fact it thrives.

A Photo of the Chosen Art Work!

Couldn't find a photo for the first post -- but this one accompanies an excellent write up of the story
by Lionel Shriver in the Wall Street Journal.

Gallery Displays Stand Instead of Sculpture

As a former art major, I'm not the least bit surprised by this story.

Apparently, a work of sculpture (specifically, a head) was submitted to the Royal Academy in London, for exhibit along with a slate base and a stick prop, and the museum displayed the base and stick without the sculpture! According to the academy, the sculpture was rejected, but the base, "was thought to have merit and accepted."

The idiocy of this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the base and the sculpture were sent to the academy in a separate shipments. It was an honest mistake. Afterall, we have had for a couple of generations, "art" that is indistinguishable from objects found in everyday life -- often even objects found in the junkyard or trash heap. This is the kind of art that requires explanation to be, "appreciated."

As an art student I always thought that if I had to explain an art work that was meant to be visual I might as well admit that it was without merit and move on. I was in the minority in this way of thinking.

HERE'S the article.

D-I-E-T (shhhh)

"Hallo, are you stuck? he asked. "N-no," said Pooh carelessly.
"Just resting and thinking and humming to myself."

"Here, give us a paw." Pooh Bear stretched out a paw,
and Rabbit pulled and pulled and pulled and pulled . . . "ow!" cried Pooh. "You're hurting!" "The fact is," said Rabbit, "you're stuck."

"It all comes," said Pooh crossly, "of not having front doors
big enough." "It all comes," said Rabbit sternly, "of eating too
much. I thought at the time," said Rabbit, "only I didn't like to say anything," said Rabbit, "that one of us was eating too much . . . and I knew it wasn't me."

Why is it that the word, "diet," only has to flit across the deep recesses of my mind to make me begin to eat like a bear getting ready to hibernate? I have gone on some version of a low carb diet soooo many times in the past couple of years -- sometimes for moments at a time. A couple of times I have even stayed on it long enough to lose 5 or 6 pounds - only to relapse and gain it back. Of course, if I stopped the overeating that I do in anticipation of a dieting -- as in, I'm going on a diet tomorrow so I will eat an "extra" donut today -- I probably wouldn't even need to diet.

Yesterday I was waiting in the hallway of a familiar courthouse for a case to be called (my life as a lawyer seems to involve a lot of waiting around punctuated by drama) -- anyway -- I began to notice all the overweight people around me -- easily 2/3rds of 30 or so people who were waiting around or passing by were carrying 50 or more extra pounds. Such a problem to have. Too much food, too easy to obtain. It's not natural!

Before law school I never had a weight problem. Well I thought I did but I didn't -- there was always 5 or 10 pounds I wanted to lose to get that guant look. But, while I was in law school I learned the meaning of "stress" as well as the concept of, "comfort food." Forty pounds worth. Now it's been more than 8 years since I finished law school and this no longer a passing problem. The fact of middle-age hasn't helped the situation any either.

I don't know where I'm going with this post -- but at least I'm not eating as I type it.

Feast of Saint Anthony of Padua

Today is the feast day of one of the best known and best loved of the canonized Saints. Although frequently called upon by Catholics for the finding of lost articles

Tony, Tony turn around,

Somethings lost which must be found

-- there is much much more to Saint Anthony. Born in Lisbon in 1195 A.D., his name at baptism was Fernando Bulhom. He entered religious life at the age of 15, sought martyrdom, became a great teacher, preacher and mystic and follower of the Great Saint Francis and was canonized within a year of his death, at age 36.

Although Anthony is known as a follower of Saint Francis -- he entered an Augustinian order at the age of 15. However, in about 1220, greatly affected by the martyrdom of five Franciscan friars in North Africa and thereafter sought to become a Franciscan. The martyred Franciscans had preached Jesus in mosques in Morrocco and had been beheaded for their efforts. Their bodies were brought back to rest in the chapel at St. Anthony's monastery in Coimbra (then the capital of Portugal). Attracted by the simple and fervent approach of the Franciscans, and longing for holy martyrdom, Fernando joined the Franciscans, and took the name, Anthony, specifically asking to be sent as a missionary to North Africa. Although Anthony went to Morrocco, he had to return due to ill health (possibly malaria). Martyrdom was not God's will for Anthony.

However, when Anthony was obliged to preach at an ordination when the preacher failed to arrive, he was found to have an astounding gift for oratory. Anthony was said to preach with the zeal of an apostle. When Francis learned of Anthony's gift he directed that he should travel and preach throughout Italy.

Miracles attended the preaching of Anthony. My favorite account is one in which he was speaking to a crowd in a coastal town and when he found the crowd insufficiently responsive -- he turned to the sea and preached to the fishes who then stood at attention with their heads out of the water listening to Anthony.

Saint Anthony's iconographic depiction, holding the Christ Child, is based on a vision said to have been witnessed by a visitor to the Saint.

Find out more about Saint Anthony:

HERE

I Am Eve

I am Eve. That is, I am subject to the same distrust of God that was Eve's downfall. I don't know why that should be such a great revelation to me. But, when it dawned on me - last evening - I was taken aback. However, I think that -- in addition to realizing that I am subject to the same human weakness that was recounted several millenia ago and credited with the fall of humanity -- this realization has brought me to a better understanding of Eve, and her story. Genesis, after first introducing us to Eve (and incidentally to Adam) tells the story of her temptation:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

[You know I recently read a review of The DaVinci Code in which the reviewer said Ian McKellan was such a great actor that he could read the Bible and make it interesting. Obviously this person had never read the Bible - because if she had she would know that it doesn't need a great actor to make it interesting. Most of the Bible is riveting. But, anyway -- I digress.]

How did the serpent (ie, the devil) tempt Eve to defy God? And, why did she fall for it? The serpent convinced Eve that God was not thinking of her best interests - and that she could not trust God. Last evening I attended a talk by Father Daniel Jones, a professor of theology from Sacred Heart Seminary and the answers to these questions hit me like an arrow fired from a crossbow -- thwack! And, once again -- as so many times before -- I had the feeling that I had come to a place where God wanted me to be so that I could hear words that I needed to hear.

Christianity is full of mystery but sometimes someone shines a bright light into a dark corner and it is shocking to see a mouse (or a snake) hiding there in the dark. That's what happened to me. Actually, these revelations from Father Jones built upon some talks I heard the previous weekend (Pentecost) having as a major theme the subject of surrendering, and saying, "yes," to God. "Yes," to whatever God wants for us, and from us. That's hard to do. As Father Jones said last night, "The trouble with a living sacrifice is that it keeps climbing off of the altar."

Last night I understood clearly that I find it hard to say, "yes," to God, because of doubt over whether God has my best interest in mind. Ultimately, because I don't trust God. That's a sobering thought -- and its accompanied by the scary thought that perhaps that doubt comes from the same purveyor of doubt that menaced Eve. And, of course he has a lot of ammunition. Life is challenging, and we as Christians have a savior who died on a cross. Saying, "yes," to God may require us to suffer - that's undeniable. But, it's also clear from my own experience that external circumstances do not determine inner state of mind, and that even in what appears to be difficulty one can experience great joy and peace.

In fact, the principal subject of Father Jones' talk, was paradox in Christianity. For instance, in the Beatitudes Jesus' instruction, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kindom of heaven . . . , " can leave us --- if we're honest --- saying "huh?" Jesus also tells us that, "many who are first will be last, and the last first," Matthew 19:30. And, "he who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." John 12:25. It's mystery --- it's meaning is not self-evident.

Jesus prompted, still prompts all of us to humility --- which as we know is not the most natural state for man -- at least not for fallen man. Humility as opposed to self-interest. And, one of the other surprising things that Father Jones said was that God was humble -- which I suppose should be obvious in that Jesus (God) who as God was rich but lived and died poor -- and on a cross. But, the serpent convinced Eve that God was self-interested, not humble -- and that belief prompted Eve to grasp for what she thought she needed. This is all from Father Jones -- I don't want to take credit for it. The only credit I can take is that I heard it -- and on some level absorbed it. So, then I realized that I ask God for help all the time, but I usually don't expect God to help me - and so I grasp for what I think I need, and usually -- just like Eve -- the thing I grasp does not satisfy -- and sometimes it's like poison.

So what do I do with that knowledge. I don't know yet. I guess I keep trying to say, "yes."

Maybe it will help me to become more like the, "new Eve," who when God called, said a resounding, "yes," when she said in humility, "I am the handmaid of the Lord."