Boston: Still the place to be

BY BRION BICKERTON

You’ve been reading about the bad economy and the aftermath of the excesses of the high tech boom. How hard have those factors hit the Boston market, and are there good reasons to put your stake in the ground in the Boston area? Why stay in Boston?

During the tech and Internet boom period, Boston was the hottest business market in the country after Silicon Valley. Boston rose with the bubble and undeniably has landed hard with the fall in the high tech markets. While Silicon Valley is more of a one horse town, there is still strong merit to Boston’s claim as a much more diversified market, with strengths in software, Internet, telecommunications, biotechnology, biomedical, venture capital, investment management, mutual fund, health care, defense and the education industries.

While many dot-com startups have shut down, the overall balance in the Boston market has helped the city avoid a bankruptcy meltdown. By some measures, Boston has the largest biotech, life science market in the country. This industry has been the rare tech sector which has continued to attract venture capital investment. This dynamic has helped Boston maintain some stability in the wake of other gloomy economic indicators.

The weakness of the economy has had some obvious impact on the legal market. Over the past several years, firms have been laying off associates – principally undertilized corporate associates first. Few firms have remained unscathed, though those firms vested most in the technology and venture capital markets have felt the greatest impact. One firm which had a larger concentration in the telecommunications and Internet industries has suffered through four or five rounds of layoffs. Firms have responded to the sporadic activity in their corporate transactional practices in different ways. Some have significantly decreased entry -level classes (thereby, decreasing summer programs). Others have reacted more aggressively, delaying start dates for entry-level hires and, in a few draconian instances, turning away entry level hires.

Salaries have also taken a hit. Some major firms that had starting salaries of $135,000 have scaled those back to $115-125,000. Many firms have reduced or failed to pay bonuses during this period. Prior to this scaleback, many of the major Boston firms had narrowed their compensation gap with New York. Profitability at some firms has suffered, but many have offset leaner corporate practices with stronger litigation and IP business. Partner compensation at the top firms continues to rank within the top 40 of all U.S. law firms in profitability.

Corporate transactional practices continue to be lackluster and sporadic. Some time next year is the more realistic hope for an upturn. By then, the dynamics should be established for a robust recovery. In addition, the departure of laid off associates into other parts of the country and into different professional endeavors should provide for a strong hiring market in the Boston firms.

The new economy presented some more interesting opportunities for Boston lawyers. With the proliferation of emerging companies in hot technology areas, an unprecedented need developed for attorneys at ever earlier stages in their careers to assume general counsel and business development roles. A decade ago, most lawyers would have found themselves working slowly up the institutional ladders at corporations, only attaining general counsel roles over a longer period of time. Because of the dearth of high-tech start-ups and the improbability of going public in the current economic climate, there are many fewer opportunities for entry-level associates to make the same kind of leap common just a few years ago. However, particularly within the biotech industry – where there is an enhanced need for biotechs to rapidly develop business relationships and strategic partnerships – lawyers continue to be asked to undertake business development roles in addition to their lawyering roles. But for those lawyers seeking to move into the business side of a corporation, the picture has presented many fewer opportunties.

Boston has strengths in many practice areas. However, attorneys looking to launch a career in areas such as entertainment, admiralty, capital markets (commodities, derivatives) and international law will find many fewer opportunities. Certain other areas of practice, like environmental, have stagnated for several years and do not show signs of rejuvenation.

Law firm options in Boston have been multiplying. With the long-term promise of its economy, Boston has drawn a lot of attention from out-of-state firms looking to secure a foothold. Florida-based Holland & Knight and Greenberg Traurig, which developed branch offices a couple of years ago, have continued to grow. Weil Gotshal just opened a branch office this fall, taking over a corporate group from an existing Boston firm that is dissolving. Existing branch offices of Pittsburgh-based Kirkpatrick & Lockhart expanded by merging with a mid-sized Boston firm, and Chicago powerhouse McDermott Will & Emery made some key partner hires, increasing its size to almost 100 lawyers. Defying the trend to go big, other partners from established firms have opened up new law firms with the expectation of developing niche practices.

Boston remains one of the most attractive cities to call home. Extensive new construction projects along the waterfront call for such diverse developments as a new arts center and a European-style housing community. The “Big Dig” project, which will put underground the current elevated autoway, is within sight of its 2004 completion date. By then, Boston’s infrastructure will have been upgraded to keep pace with the rest of the economy.

Brion A. Bickerton is the founding partner of Bickerton & Gordon LLC, which specializes in the placement of lawyers in Boston and New England. He formerly practiced in the London and Boston offices of a major Boston law firm and can be reached at 617-371-2929 or bbickerton@bickertongordon.com. Bickerton & Gordon hosts a web site which provides updates about the Boston legal market and its opportunities (see BickertonGordon.com).

The road less traveled

BY ALEXA SHABECOFF

At the Office of Public Interest Advising, we believe that practicing law is about more than making a living or representing clients competently and ethically. We believe that what makes law a profession, rather than simply an occupation, is a fundamental commitment to an equitable and fair legal system. A just system should be made accessible to both rich and poor, to those holding political power and to those profoundly marginalized; it should consider both those issues embraced and those rejected by the majority. We also believe that different jobs satisfy different people depending on their unique values, personalities and work styles. We have found that no matter what your ideals are, if you are not in the right job, you will not be happy.

These beliefs imbue our work at OPIA with a deep sense of mission. These ideals make it extremely gratifying to work with those of you who will be the public interest leaders of your generation, as well as those of you who will apply your public service ethos to making a difference by doing pro bono work in the private sector. We strive to help you articulate and pursue a professional sense of self that will enable you to achieve a confluence between your professional and personal lives. Most importantly, we hope that we can help you find the kind of work you will find both enjoyable and fulfilling.

We know that some of you have come here with a good idea of what you want to do with your law degree. But, after thousands of conversations with HLS students, we have realized that many of you may have ended up in law school because you lack a strong sense of what you want to do for a living. Having left college without specific training, and knowing that further education is highly valued, you find comfort in a place that will not only give you more time to prepare for the “real world” but will also give you skills that can be applied in numerous settings.

Yet, despite the many doors that a law degree from HLS is supposed to open, many start to see only one option: going into large law firms. There are some reasons that many of you start to narrow your vision of what you can do with a law degree:

* huge debt loads which make you wonder if you can afford to live on anything less than what the big firms pay;

* the somewhat more challenging nature of pursuing other paths, including but not limited to the public market;

* the pressure of watching your classmates gravitate to big firms; and,

* the added pressure of family or the expectations of others.

All of these factors can create a sense of conflict about the type of work you want to pursue with your law degree. Caught up in the “fall insanity” at HLS, some of you do not manage to find the time to reflect about whether you should go to a small firm, a business, a plaintiff’s firm, government work or the nonprofit sector. We urge you to think about your aspirations more carefully and find a job you love.

Clarify a Vision Behind Your Work

Take time to reflect thoughtfully on what you want to achieve professionally. One alum shared this advice: “Think first about what you like to do – not just what you’re good at, what you think you should do, or what’s the path of least resistance.” Most people who love their work have found jobs involving issues about which they feel passionate, as opposed to work at which they may excel but dislike. In discovering what it is that you really want to do, recognize that your interests do not always coincide with your talents. To find work that suits you uniquely, you need to confront questions regarding what you love to do and what really matters to you in your work. Below we share some of the issues you might want to think about while deciding what you want to do this summer and with your law degree when you graduate.

Decide: Whose Life is This Anyway?

As you begin to think about what direction you want your career to take, be sure to make your own values and passions your touchstones. Avoid being swayed by other people’s expectations of you. For example, if your family expects you to save the world through large law reform cases – as mine did way back when I was in law school – but you’d rather work with one client at a time, follow your own preferences. This can be especially hard for those who go to top tier law schools because often we have grown accustomed to judging our achievements in terms of traditional measures of success such as high grades, big salary and public praise. Until you are able to focus on what you want and what you truly consider important, your efforts at finding meaningful work will most likely be thwarted.

Evaluate Your Ambitions and Values

You alone can decide what will make you happy. Figure out what you find important and satisfying:

* What have you liked and disliked from your prior life experiences?

* What issues do you like to read about?

* What volunteer work do you gravitate towards?

* What academic subjects excite you?

Sort out what motivates you and stimulates you. Be careful to distinguish between what you truly care about and what you believe is marketable – they may not overlap. Allowing yourself to be swayed by the latter without considering the former may result in making an expedient, but unsatisfying, career decision.

Evaluate the Nature of the Work and Work Environment That Fits You

Happy lawyers tell us that in addition to working on issues that engage them, the nature of the work and the workplace setting may be critical to finding the right fit. Drawing upon your prior work, volunteer and academic experiences, think about some of the following questions:

* Do you love to research and write?

* Do you enjoy frequent contact with people? Must it be with clients or are colleagues enough?

* Are you happier juggling multiple short-term projects or spending large quantities of time digging into a few long-term assignments?

* Do you embrace responsibility and autonomy or do you prefer close oversight and a gradual increase in responsibility?

* Do you need to see the immediate results of your work, or are you satisfied with the potential for eventual large impact?

* Do you seek formal training, or will you be satisfied by on-the-job training combined with some supervision and/or mentoring?

* Do you want a formal organized atmosphere, or are you happier with a casual, non-hierarchical setting?

* How important is it for the office you work in to have a great deal of resources at its disposal?

* Do you have strong needs for political/ideological compatibility?

* Do you need to have some political activism in your job?

Learn About What Lawyers Do

Law school provides you with an unparalleled opportunity to explore different options within (and even outside) the legal profession. If you are interested in pursuing any type of public interest or government work, you can start by picking up a copy of our Public Interest Job Search Guide and brainstorming with our attorney advisers and our visiting Wasserstein Fellows. Our attorney advisers are career counselors with backgrounds in a variety of public service legal careers. Our Visiting Wasserstein Fellows can share insights about the public interest positions they have held. To get a flavor of practice settings without even leaving your dorm room or apartment, you can read narratives we have collected from alumni/ae in our Public Interest Job Search Guide, in both editions of Alumni/ae in Action and in Outstanding Lawyers in Action, a compilation of narratives written by our Wasserstein Fellows.

You can read about specific fields by picking up one of our specialty guides or printing it from our website: www.law.harvard.edu/Students/opia. You can attend panels like the World of Law series and hear from public interest lawyers about what their work entails, what they like and dislike about their jobs, and how you c
an pursue similar work if you are interested. You can talk to the hundreds of alumni/ae doing public service work who have agreed to serve as mentors to students and who will often be delighted to talk to you about their work. You can also talk to the faculty in our Faculty Public Interest Directory who have agreed to advise students in their area of expertise.

Create a Game Plan

Try out the kind of work that seems appealing to you. You will never again have such a great opportunity to experiment, so seize it! Naturally, the summers offer the biggest chunk of time for sampling different jobs. But do not underestimate the value of work done through a student group, a volunteer job off-campus, or, especially, a clinical placement, to help you discover what you enjoy in the practice of law. Working for a professor on issues that interest you can help you learn more about those issues. And if you already have a very good sense of what you want to do when you graduate, law school affords you the chance to confirm or reevaluate your expectations, to build a track record that will make you an attractive candidate for the jobs you choose to pursue, and to make contacts in your chosen field.

Figure Out What Money Means to Your Job Choice

Determine how much money you need to afford the quality of life that makes you happy. Different people need different kinds of amenities in order to be satisfied. Most public interest lawyers aren’t “poor.” Early in our careers, we manage to pay the rent, afford a suitable wardrobe, and have money left over for dinner and a movie. Later in life, most of us manage mortgages on nice homes and can afford new cars. We can provide a high quality of life for our children, giving them ballet and karate lessons, and taking them on the occasional exotic vacation. Almost every public interest lawyer will tell you that any financial trade-off they made was well worth it. Whether you will be one of the people who can be a public interest lawyer (or even a lawyer at a small private law firm that does not pay as much as the big firms) and live well depends on your own financial situation. Fortunately, as many of you know, HLS’s loan forgiveness program, the Low Income Protection Plan (LIPP), was dramatically improved and now is better able to provide those with high debt the opportunity to take a relatively lower-paying public service job.

If you have high educational debt, don’t just assume that you cannot afford to make choices about the jobs you pursue upon graduation. Come to the panel that OPIA co-sponsors with the Financial Aid Office on LIPP and HLS postgraduate public service fellowships. Go to the Financial Aid Office and find out how LIPP will work for you. Find out how much your monthly loan payments will be if you work in a particular field, and figure out whether you can live, according to your own needs, with what is leftover. If you don’t have debt, decide whether you will be happy with the lifestyle you will have on a public interest salary or whether you need more.

Consider How you Define Success and Happiness

Ultimately we all need to take a long hard look at how each of us defines success and happiness. Rather than thinking of power in terms of paycheck or employer name recognition, many of us will choose to conceive of it as the ability to effect social change or to help individual clients protect their rights and dignity. We pick our jobs because we know that we will look forward to going to work.

By shifting our focus away from the perceived expectations of others, we become free to pursue our own values, personalities and passions. For many of us, this proves a difficult thing to do. But try it: take a look at what it is that you truly want to do. By doing so, you can redefine success in terms of finding a career that will be fulfilling. Hopefully, you will join the many alums who call and write to us at OPIA, marveling at the joy they find in their work.

[Alexa Shabecoff is the Director of the Office of Public Interest Advising.]

The firms are coming! (Don’t freak out.)

BY

An Introduction to the On-Campus Interview Program

It is as sure a sign of fall in New England as the brilliant foliage – Harvard Law students in suits, hurrying toward the local hotels, clutching printouts of employer websites and glancing desperately at their watches. The sense of excitement is palpable. Hundreds of students and hundreds of employers meet for a common purpose – to make a match. Employers are looking to tap Harvard’s rich talent pool and students are seeking an opportunity to take the next step toward a legal career by entering the world of practice.

This decades-old tradition is the fall On-Campus Interview Program (OCI), the most visible of the Office of Career Services’ numerous job search programs. The purpose of this article is to de-mystify the OCI process and help students prepare for the intense, exciting and stressful weeks ahead.

Sorting Fact From Fiction

With more than 700 employers participating in OCI, Harvard Law School hosts the largest legal recruitment program in the country. Despite the economic slowdown, the demand for Harvard students remains strong. If nothing else, students can take comfort in the fact that, given there are 550 or so students in a class (and that the vast majority of 3L students don’t participate in OCI) the odds are in your favor!

With such a large, intense and complex process at work, rumors and misinformation are sure to circulate, and OCS often hears them. Let’s address some of the common fears and misperceptions.

“In this market, finding a job will be impossible.”

We have been in touch with firms around the country to discuss their hiring plans. In addition, we have been actively researching and monitoring news about the legal employment market. While this will be a challenging market compared to years such as 1999, there is also ample reason for optimism. Certain firms and certain regions continue to cut back, but this is not universal. Last year saw many significant across-the-board reductions in the size of summer programs, reflecting the need to adjust for what was, in retrospect, over-expansion in the late Ô90s. Despite this, the 2001 OCI program was quite successful. While the office has heard of firms planning further reductions, this news is balanced by firms planning to increase class size. Students may need to compromise on firm, region or specialty, but a well thought out effort should yield a great job.

“Firms won’t even look at students who don’t have certain grades.”

There is no pre-screening in the bidding process. Career Services guidelines require that all HLS students, given their level of achievement and talent, should have an opportunity to interview with the employers of their choice during OCI. Most employers consider grades as only one factor among many in the hiring process – they are well aware of the rigorous selection process that goes on just to become a member of the HLS class.

This is not to say that grades don’t matter. The most sought-after employers in the most selective markets have an abundant choice of highly qualified students. They have the luxury of choosing only from the top of a class. Keep this in mind when you choose employers for interviews. It is a risky strategy to talk to only these employers.

“You don’t get to interview with the employers you want.”

OCS uses a lottery system to assign interviews to students after the process of selecting employers, or “bidding” for interview spots, occurs. A scheduling algorithm in the bidding program attempts to maximize students’ top choices, taking care not to conflict with academic class schedules, which are exported directly from the registrar’s office to the Career Services system. Do not let this apparent lack of control over your destiny make you uncomfortable. A breakdown of past statistics shows that students typically get 70 percent of the interviews they request. In addition, resumes for all the students who bid on an employer are forwarded to the employer. A student who does not get an interview is placed on a waiting list and may get a spot after the period for modifying schedules. In addition, you can contact an employer directly to try to arrange alternatives.

“The best way to insure success is to interview like crazy.”

Students too often believe that the best way to approach OCI is to bid for the greatest number of interviews possible. A more thoughtful, targeted approach is likely to be more successful and is certain to be less stressful.

As a reference point, during last year’s interview season, 2Ls interviewed with an average of 18 to 22 employers. Three-Ls, who are still sorting out their options or redirecting their job search, typically interview with nine to ten employers. (Many employers do not interview 3Ls, having satisfied their hiring needs from their summer class.) Rather than signing up to fill every available waking hour, be realistic. Taking into account the market and your law school record, sign up for an appropriate range and number of firms. Sign up for some sought-after top choice firms, but be sure to include other alternatives.

“There is no way to know what my odds are.”

Unfortunately, the OCI process can only provide opportunity, not certainty. OCS has a notebook of recruitment statistics that records the number of students who bid on each employer, the number of interviews assigned, the number of callback invitations extended and the number of employment offers extended. The information is also available on the OCS website, located at www.law.harvard.edu/ocs. These numbers provide a statistical perspective on employers and what their callback processes may yield. Unfortunately, the statistics can’t provide information about many important factors that influence firms’ decisions – such as how a student interviews – and their academic performance, previous experience and general levels of achievement. The statistics can give you a general sense of how many seek, how many are called and how many are chosen.

Getting ready for OCI

With a more accurate understanding of OCI you are ready to take the next step: preparing for the bidding process.

There is more than one way to tackle the OCI process. A surprisingly popular method goes something like this: A student looks up, sees an OCS poster on a board at the Hark and remembers that he better get his OCI bids in this weekend. On Monday evening, the night before bidding closes, he sits down at his computer. Based on a general sense that he would like to be in a city and on comments from his classmates that the best jobs are in D.C. and New York, he opens the site, searches by city and then looks over the ensuing list of D.C. and N.Y.C. firms to pick names he recognizes. Since he only recognizes two or three names in each city, he surfs over to the AmLaw 100 to get the names of other “top” firms. Satisfied that he has selected the best firms, he submits his bid. This is not the method Career Services recommends.

That said, it might well work out for this student. He may stumble on a great firm, well suited to him, in a city that he enjoys. But if he does, it will be purely by chance. Of course, there is always an element of chance and uncertainty in the job search process, but your goal should be to reduce the element of surprise and shift the odds in your favor. Below are some suggestions for how to do this.

Do a Basic Self-Assessment

First, take some time to think about what you truly want. The OCI process is a whirlwind experience, even for the most organized students. Resist the forces that cause you to lose sight of what makes you happy and focus instead on where you think you are most likely to succeed personally and professionally. Without pausing to assess your personal needs and talents, you may find yourself in a job that is empty and unfulfilling. Sorting through this kind of complex and personal issue is a highly individ
ual process. Use the methods that work for you. Some suggestions:

Try to recall what you liked and disliked about previous employment. Sit down and get the list on paper. Try to capture the underlying qualities that were important. For example, if you enjoyed editing your school paper, was it because the deadline pressure was invigorating or because you like the detail work of copyediting or because the people were great?

Engage in active discussion with friends, family and professors. Listening to the experience of others, as well as trying to clarify and articulate your own thoughts to others, can be enormously helpful.

Talk with the career services professionals here at the Law School. All of the OCS Career Counselors have their J.D. and have worked in a variety of practice areas, practice venues and geographic locations. The OCS staff has been through on-campus interviewing programs both as students and now as professional career counselors. Take advantage of their experience and expertise.

Attend panels, programs and receptions offered in conjunction with OCI and engage visiting attorneys and panelists in discussion. You can also use the alumni resource network available in OCS and the various mentoring files maintained by the Office of Public Interest Advising.

If you still find yourself uncertain, the Office of Student Life Counseling offers professional counseling to assist you with self-assessment.

Research and Select Employers

Although the legal marketplace has slowed, OCS has seen only a small reduction in the number of employers participating in OCI. You will still be faced with a daunting task as you try to sort through hundreds of employers. A number of strategies and resources exist that can assist you in learning more about employers.

OCS WEBSITE

To begin your research, be sure to visit the OCS website at www.law.harvard.edu/ocs. The website provides links to a variety of useful online resources as well as descriptions of hard copy resources available at the OCS office. Available on-line are the HLS On-line Employer Directory, the National Association for Law Placement Directory, Lawmatch.com, Lexis, Westlaw, Infirmation.com, HLS Student Summer Job Evaluations and the Vault Report of the “Top 100 Law Firms.” These resources, as well as other available in the OCS office, provide detailed information so that you are planning your career based on considered information, and not simply the perceived prestige of your potential employer.

EMPLOYER WEBSITES

Admittedly, you would find it a challenge to look at the website of every potentially interesting employer before you make bid decisions, so you may need to be selective at this stage. However, you should never enter an interview without first looking at the employer’s site. If time is limited, look for certain basic information so you will not appear obviously unprepared. Suggested areas: employer size, practice areas, location of branch offices, any information about summer programs (if that is what you are interested in) and whatever they showcase on the main page.

THE CALLBACK

Callback interviews, the second round of interviews when an employer invites you to the office to meet and interview with a number of other attorneys, offer a unique opportunity to assess firm culture and get a least a sampling of personalities with whom you may work. But to take advantage of this opportunity, you need to be prepared.

Perhaps the major student complaint about callbacks is that they seem undifferentiated – one firm seems like the next. The problem is usually that students take the wrong approach – they ask questions and listen for the reply. Because answers are likely to be shaped by an understanding of what students want and expect to hear, replies can sound remarkably similar. A better approach is to trust your instincts. Look beyond the words to get a sense of the place. How do people interact with each other? What are the offices like? How does the employer’s work setting feel to you? Formal? Quiet? Intense? Collegial? What adjectives would you use to describe the people? Equipped with a good sense of the firm, you need to determine whether this is a good fit. Ask yourself some crucial questions. What type of people do you enjoy working with? What environment is most comfortable for you and/or what environment promotes your success and productivity? Bearing these questions in mind during the callback process, you will make a more informed employment decision.

Create a “Plan B”

In light of the current market, after you have identified your ideal employers in your ideal market, you should also follow the old adage to “assume the best but prepare for the worst.” If your first choice options do not work out, what do you want to do? Again, this is a personal decision that demands that you prioritize your desires. Which is most important: a firm’s prestige, the city, the practice area or something else? Where will you compromise? You may prefer a national firm located in a less sought-after city or you may be determined to settle in a given area even if you must compromise on the employer.

Incorporate appropriate options into your bidding plans. Many fine employers who visit Harvard are overlooked because they are not well known or because they do not fit the current fashion.

Finally, Take a Moment to Think Outside the OCI Box

Are there places you should be looking outside the OCI process? Many law firms and other employers that may interest you will not participate in OCI. Many smaller firms do not have the resources to make the trip to Cambridge. Other mid-sized or more geographically remote employers feel they cannot compete for your attention, so they allocate their resources elsewhere. If you need help locating these employers, look for the OCS programs on “Finding a Job Outside OCI” offered in the fall or make an appointment to see an advisor. Rest assured, these employers would love to receive a resume and cover letter from you. Please seek them out. A good cover letter can achieve a lot, especially if you send it far enough in advance of Flyout Week to schedule some of your own interviews with these employers. Do not make the mistake of overlooking a particular firm or location simply because it is not included in the OCI process.

The First Step

You are at the beginning of your legal career, and it is unlikely that you or any one else can predict exactly where your professional journey will lead. Gone are the days when your first job upon graduation was one you would keep for many years, or even retire from. Think of the OCI selection process as the beginning of your journey and navigate thoughtfully. Your career path is unique and individually paved by you, not by the Vault Reports, The American Lawyer or a consensus of your classmates or relatives.

Through the job search process, you will learn to take charge of your career. Take advantage of the abundant career advising resources at HLS, from counselors to panelists, publications to websites. One of the most distinct advantages of attending Harvard Law School is the unsurpassed quality, potential, character and sheer number of your classmates. Over time, they will become your most effective network.

Soon, campus life will return to normal, the suits will disappear and OCI will be behind you. In the meantime, remember that at no other time in your career will you go about finding a job in quite the same way. So, relax, be yourself, learn a lot and enjoy!

“if”–A poem by Mark Byers, Director, Office of Student Life Counseling

BY

If you can keep your head when all about you,

Are losing theirs in every interview,

If you can trust yourself when recruiters doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting, too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

And though keen to please, refrain from lies;

Or being rated, don’t worship rating,

You’ll sound your best, yet be truly wise.

If you can dream of jobs, and not make jobs your master;

If you can think like a lawyer, and not make that your aim;

If you can meet the firm of Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two partners just the same;

If you can bear the words you’ve spoken

Twisted by interviewers to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the resume you crafted broken

To fit someone else’s rules;

If you can make a heap of all your offers,

And once you’ve slept on it, risk one with the toss

Of a coin, and start again at the beginning,

and if it’s a mistake, write off your loss;

If you can call a headhunter, when your heart and sinew

Have served their turn and are nearly gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Until the time comes to say at last – “So long!”

If you can work for clients and keep your virtue,

Or lunch with partners – nor lose the common touch,

If inflated egos cannot hurt you,

If all assignments count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With 60 seconds worth of billing, yet have some fun,

And have a life and love all who share in it,

You’ll have fought the odds and won!

(Apologies to Rudyard Kipling!)

The Office of Student Life Counseling provides counseling services for all law students. The office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays. Call 495-2967 for an appointment.

Finding your field of dreams

BY MARK WEBER

Without becoming too philosophical, as law students, you must regularly examine your motives for joining and staying in the profession. Your reasons for practicing 15 years after graduation are likely to be far different from those when you submitted your law school applications. I can assure you that you will fare well in the job market. I say that with confidence and scores of statistics to support it. Despite this knowledge that you will have ultimate success in the job market, the job search can be a stressful experience.

For the first time in your life, there is no prescribed path to follow on the short-term horizon. The segments of education from kindergarten through the end of law school are discrete, predictable and in some sense easily understood. Now the great adventure begins. You don’t know how long a career may last, what changes it will take, what will be achieved and what will be sacrificed. Simply stated, you don’t have all the answers. The responsibility is yours to evaluate the options and reach an informed decision. Although this is new territory, it need not be alien. If you listen to your heart and mind, if you engage in a process of self-evaluation, and if you are willing to concede freely of your mistakes and imperfections, professional success will be considerably easier to achieve.

When you graduated from college, it was relatively easy to pick the top 10 or 15 law schools in the country. There is no such list of employers for practicing lawyers. The good news is that there are many extraordinary employers in cities large and small throughout the country. It would be the height of arrogance to concoct a list of the “best,” although some legal journals purport to do that. No one can decide for you what is the best route. You have to make that decision, be secure with it when it is made, but not reluctant to reappraise it from time to time. There are no grades in life and no Law Review to which to aspire. Instead, you make the assessment of what is important and you must also assess how well you are meeting your own standards.

You, not someone else, will have to decide many of the following tough issues:

– Where do I want to live?

– How hard do I want to work?

– Which comes first – job or family?

– Does my ambition or my ego require a certain level of prominence or prestige?

– Will I feel happier in a small firm, a large one, or does it matter at all?

– What is more important prestige and income or family and time?

– How important is community service and serving the less fortunate?

On issues of city, firm size, practice orientation and economics, determine what is important to you and why. Acknowledge that your interests will evolve, conflict and confuse you from time to time – and that they may be entirely different from those of your best friends or from what is “hot” this year. But don’t be passive and allow a firm to dictate what should be of interest to you.

This is a very complex time emotionally and psychologically and you should not be concerned if all of this seems both confusing and a bit overwhelming. The good news is that when all is said and done it is difficult to make a mistake.

Welcome back. We are delighted to be here, and on behalf of the Career Services Staff, we look forward to working with you and helping you achieve your field of dreams.

[Mark Weber is the Director of the Office of Career Services.]

Former Solicitor General-Liberals must stand up

BY TIFFANY BENJAMIN

Walter Dellinger served as Solicitor General under President Clinton from 1996-1997.

Surrounded by a small crowd of Harvard Law School students and faculty, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger spoke Monday on the importance of liberal constitutional interpretation.

“Today the institutions of national government are being weakened and in some venues are held in low esteem,” he said. “Some of this disparaging evidence has been justified because presidents of both parties and congresses of both parties have engaged in lots of trivial legislation and lots of trivial debates. But we should recall what a strong national government has accomplished over two centuries.”

Dellinger’s speech, entitled “Reimagining the Constitution / Recapturing the Flag” was hosted by the American Constitution Society, a national organization focused on encouraging liberal and left-wing students to discuss the ideals of the U.S. Constitution. Dellinger serves as a member of the society’s national advisory board.

Dellinger’s address followed constitutional history from the Constitutional Convention of 1776 to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, focusing on the development of constitutional interpretation in the eyes of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr.

“What can we learn from Lincoln and King? I believe that we can learn that the vision of American constitutionalism will always be a contested one. And that those who lack the power of position or the perquisites of office should be about the business of staking a claim to those values they believe constitute the legitimate beings of American constitutionalism,” he said.

Dellinger claimed that liberal and left-wing individuals “have for too long said that aggressive constitutionalism was a matter of preference and not a matter of law.” Liberal scholars, he said, should try to be as vocal as their conservative counterparts.

“We should not concede that the founding and the best account of our substantive constitutional tradition necessarily culminate with the constitution of a balkanized republic with a national legislature that lacks the power to protect the liberty and quality of its citizens against the parochial intrusions of state and local bureaucracies,” he said. “We should not concede that the best vision and the founding tradition of our constitution is a Republican national legislature treated by its Supreme Court like the counsel of a lower court judge.”

Two-L Anjan Choudhury, who is president of the American Constitution Society, said that he was inspired by Dellinger’s work in constitutional litigation and his “invocation that ideas matter.”

For his part, Dellinger said that the Society’s mission of examining and re-examining the Constitution is a vital one. “It is to the future we must look as we attempt to reclaim the past.”

Dellinger served as Solicitor General during the 1996-1997 Supreme Court term, where he tackled such issues as physician-assisted suicide, the line-item veto and the Paula Jones case. Prior to his term as Solicitor General, Dellinger served as an advisor to President Clinton on constitutional issues, and then as Assistant Attorney General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel. He was also a Douglas B. Magg Professor at Duke University. He currently works for the O’Melveny & Myers law firm in Washington, D.C.

1L plus one

BY TREVOR GARDNER

Fewell1.jpg
Fewell2.jpg

Kenitra Fewell doesn’t have time to sit around the Hark pool table and whine about the burdens of 1L year. During such rituals Kenitra is likely either caring for her son, Hughie, or completing tasks that will allow her more time to care for him.

“Most people meet each other in the Hark at lunch,” she said. “I go home for lunch. I think my mentality is a little different. I can’t say, ‘Oh I’m going to go chill in the Hark for three or four hours.’ I have to cook for my child, or get a lead test for my child.”

Hughie Fewell III, nicknamed “Tre,” was born on June 25, 1998. As a four-year old, Tre appears happy in Cambridge, and not the least bit timid in his new environment. For him, the recent move from Atlanta to Cambridge hasn’t required a transition period. Kenitra said that her son speaks to everyone he encounters on the street, clinging to his brief upbringing in a culture of Southern hospitality.

“He is a charmer, and the epitome of a Southerner,” she said. “Every time we walk to school, I’m accustomed to not speaking. Down South, you speak when you make eye contact. Tre speaks to everyone. I guess people don’t want to be mean to little kids, so they talk back.”

To ensure that Tre kept his disarming smile and made a seamless transition to the area, Kenitra began researching local day-care centers well in advance of the move to Cambridge. Instead of looking for an apartment close to campus, her first priority was to find a place close to a reputable day-care center.

“Even though you like a day-care center, it doesn’t mean your child will. And vice versa. In Atlanta I went through three or four day care centers until I found one that fit.”

None of the HLS students Kentira initially contacted knew of day-care centers near HLS. But eventually, she found the phone number to the Harvard Office of Working Families, which offered her five centers affiliated with the University. Kenitra then went to determine each center’s location relative to the Law School. Then she had to apply.

“I didn’t even know you had to ‘apply’ to get childcare, but you do,” she said.

Kenitra applied to three day-care centers: Botanic Gardens, Harvard Yard and Radcliffe. After landing a spot for Tre at the Botanic Gardens, Kenitra found out that the day-care selection process is fairly competitive.

“[Here,] he likes his teachers, and that’s important. He likes one teacher in particular. If he includes you in his prayers, he likes you,” she said.

Kenitra said she believes Tre’s relationship with his teachers is critical to his learning experience.

“Every day he asks, ‘Am I going to school today?’ I say, ‘No, it’s the weekend.’ He likes it.”

After signing a one-year contract with the day-care center, Kenitra then made the Botanic Gardens apartment complex her first choice in the affiliated housing lottery. She received her first choice. But Kenitra may have to move next fall when Tre begins pre-school to get him into a school she favors. Such a move carries an element of uncertainty, since Cambridge practices an aggressive busing system which Kenitra suspects is based on either race or economics.

“At the day care, Tre is the only African-American child in his class…. I would have to research the school my child would be attending if I got another apartment,” she said.

Such child-care responsibilities are especially time intensive, which makes Kendra’s ability to juggle multiple roles during the notoriously busy 1L year all the more remarkable.

“I’m still searching for time management [techniques],” she said. “Children do require a lot of attention. If I’m reading, he wants to know what I’m reading, and why I’m reading it. Right now I think I need to manage my time better and get my reading done while Tre is at day-care.”

However, Kenitra doesn’t view caring for Tre as a burden. “A lot of people said, ‘Don’t you think it’s going to be hard having a kid and going to law school?’ But I’ve had a kid for the past four years. I’ve had Tre since undergrad.”

Kenitra graduated from Tuskeegee University in Alabama in 1999, with a B.A. in math, and a B.S. in computer science. After leaving Tuskeegee she worked as an independent software developer, contracting with a number of large companies.

She said that students in her section are very supportive, and insist that she bring Tre to class. But she often warns them to be careful of what they wish for.

“Everybody says, ‘Just bring your kid to class.’ A: He’s not going to have fun in class. B: He’s going to bother other people. I can tune him out. Other people can’t do that. People ask me to bring him to section brunch. I don’t want my child to be left out, but I don’t think people without kids can appreciate the circumstances. I don’t want to put him in situations that have no benefit to him.”

Whenever Kenitra does bring Tre to campus students seem to enjoy his company. A few students have even offered to babysit. So far, Tre has spent some time in Wyeth with Keia Sears, a 2L.

“Tre likes other law school students,” she said. “He really likes Keia. He said he wants to stay in the dorm.”

[Photos by Ezra Rosser/RECORD.]

Newsbriefs: Dersh on torture, Miss HLS, and Summers on anti-Semitism

BY

Dershowitz gives torture the thumbs up

Professor Alan Dershowitz continues to speak out on the controversial issue of using torture in terrorist cases and other sticky situations. The high-profile prof appeared on The Today Show this week to argue that torture could become a judicially-sanctioned procedure, similar to a search warrant, where a judge could officially sign off on its use.

During an earlier conversation with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, Dershowitz said, “We can’t just close our eyes and pretend we live in a pure world…. If anybody had the ability to prevent the events of Sept. 11. . . they would have gone to whatever length…. The problem becomes, where do we draw that line?” Dershowitz used the example of a ticking bomb scenario, where the use of torture could help elicit vital information leading to the bomb’s whereabouts. Students who have Dershowitz in class should take note that his comments give a whole new meaning to the phrase “being in the hot seat.”

Miss America: Already in America, coming to HLS

There was something actually unique about the crowning of Miss America on Sunday. Erika Harold, the contestant from Illinois, was recently accepted to Harvard Law School but postponed coming to the Law School in order to compete in the pageant. Harold, who plans to fight youth violence during her upcoming national speaking tour as Miss America, received a $50,000 scholarship for Saturday night’s big win.

To put this in context for law students, this means that Harold paraded her body and mind before a critical panel of judges in order to barely cover one year of law school expenses. Well, she’s a lot better off there than at the Financial Aid office.

Summers slams alleged anti-Semitism at the University

Harvard University President Lawrence Summers spoke out last week against what he saw as growing anti-Semitism at Harvard University and elsewhere. His remarks came in response to growing demands that Harvard remove all Israeli investments from its endowment.

Summers said that he was making his remarks “not as president of the university but as a concerned member of our community.” Earlier this year, nearly 600 professors from Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology signed a petition urging Harvard and M.I.T. to divest from Israel. Some of those who signed the petition argued that Summers’ remarks were an attempt to cut off debate on the subject.

Prof. Dershowitz, a vocal opponent of divestiture, called in this week’s Harvard Crimson for a debate with Winthrop House Master Paul Hanson, who signed a pro-divestment petition.

“Those who sign the divestment petition should be ashamed of themselves,” Dershowitz wrote in a Crimson opinion column. “If they are not, it is up to others to shame them.”

Without new advisor, OPIA faces crunch

BY YONI ROSENZWEIG

The Office of Public Interest Advising is both desperate for a hire and not going to settle. Though authorized last spring, the search for a second full-time OPIA adviser still continues. And unless someone is hired after the coming rounds of interviews, students are likely to experience advising delays akin to last year’s record levels.

In an OPIA survey from last year, students made clear that the squeaky wheel needs the grease. Many complained that the wait time to meet a public interest adviser in the fall delayed their public interest career planning for up to five weeks.

Those delays “often mean students miss opportunities,” according to 3L David Arkush. Last year, some frustrated students left the OPIA process, opting instead for the quicker turnaround times at the better-staffed Office of Career Services.

To avoid a repeat of those circumstances, OPIA hopes to have its second full-time adviser in place soon. Adviser and coordinator Benna Kushlefsky predicted that, “if we don’t hire an Assistant Director by November, it will be insane here and the quality of service will suffer.”

Student demand for counseling typically floods OPIA by November, when 1Ls are permitted to contact advisers and upperclassmen are eager to solidify future plans. According to OPIA administrators, last year’s annual survey was the first time students expressed mass disappointment, mostly because of wait times.

According to OPIA Director Alexa Shabecoff, the staffing shortage is especially serious at HLS because, in addition to advising a large student body, OPIA publishes a seminal guide to legal public interest work and takes a leadership role nationally among public interest offices.

The increasing responsibilities for staff members, coupled with increases in demand, put a strain on the staff, according to OPIA staffer Jennie Williamson. Along with Shabecoff, Williamson is OPIA’s only other full-time employee.

After years of formal requests for another full time staff member, relief seemed on the horizon when Dean Robert Clark authorized the hiring of a full-time Assistant Director last April. When filled, the position will be OPIA’s first new full-time position since its inception in 1990.

Many students and staff members regarded the hiring of another full-time adviser as overdue, pointing out that some peer institutions have six public interest advisers, and most have at least three.

The Perfect Candidate

While OPIA currently has eight part-time advisors — more than most schools — Shabecoff said that such advisers can’t gain a general knowledge of the field or of campus resources as easily as a full-time counterpart.

“I can’t delegate administrative responsibilities to part time advisers,” Shabecoff said. Part time advisers typically advise for five hours per week and have specialized areas of knowledge. Instead of specialized advisers, Shabecoff claimed, “we need a generalist career counselor.”

While the office hoped for a hire by July, the search has dragged on. Qualified applicants, Shabecoff claims, must have an unusual mix of legal public interest experience, willingness to perform mundane administrative and technical tasks, a diverse background and an openness to the many fields of student interest.

Openness to the variety of student interests has especially been a problem. “Some people turn pale in interviews when I bring up the kinds of public interest placements that OPIA makes,” Shabecoff said, adding that she refuses to hire anyone who does not share her “big tent” view of public interest work.

Regarding diversity of background, Shabecoff said that, “having worked in legal services, I am reluctant to hire someone with the same background. We are very interested in someone with diverse or international experience.”

OPIA’s selection process is also strict. After being selected from among hundreds of applicants to interview for the position, a prospective hire must also meet with a student and a faculty committee. Until a “perfect candidate” emerges, some are put on hold, awaiting the results of other rounds.

Shabecoff said that an applicant might be accepted following the round of interviews taking place next week. But as the office continues its search, Shabecoff said that she hopes students will spend more time in the office and less time “staring at my closed door.”

Dershowitz, Catholic Law Dean debate pledge of allegiance

BY CLINTON DICK

The battle over the pledge of allegiance finally made its way to HLS last Thursday, as Professor Alan Dershowitz took on Dean Douglas Kmiec of the Catholic University School of Law.

The debate centered around the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, in which it was held that the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. For over an hour, Dershowitz and Kmiec dueled about the case, as well as the broader and more complicated issue of religion in government.

Kmiec argued that the invocation of God in the pledge is recognition of both the imperfect nature of human institutions and of a higher law that should guide human affairs in their ordering of society and government. Dershowitz contended that the pledge, as it is currently worded, unfairly excludes both atheists and those who do not feel that “under God” encompasses their understanding of a higher being. It was, in the words of 1L Hugo Torres, a “thought-provoking discussion that raised several interesting questions that we will continue to grapple with now, and in the future.”

Kmiec began his defense of “under God” by saying, “I do not believe in any factual sense of the term that the pledge is a prayer.” Instead, he argued, the pledge is a promise of loyalty or fidelity to the nation and thus, the phrase “under God” is a way to communicate the ideals that were present at the nation’s founding. The founders, Kmiec continued, recognized that because of the imperfection of the human mind, human rights had to be grounded in a law higher than human law. Jefferson recognized this connection between rights and God when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, Kmiec said, and that is why “you cannot have the Constitution without the Declaration.”

Using the example of slavery, Kmiec attempted to demonstrate how in that instance, human law had been construed to justify a wrong that the law of nature and nature’s God always held to be wrong. “A reminder that there is a higher power limits the state from assuming God-like powers,” Kmiec said. Otherwise, he said, “the state would be God.”

Dershowitz responded initially to Kmiec’s arguments not with an attack, but with a concession on two points the Dean had made: The pledge was not a prayer, and Newdow would be overturned either by the Ninth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court.

But that marked the end of the two men’s agreement. “I have never said the pledge since ‘under God’ was inserted,” Dershowitz said. He reminded those gathered that not every child feels comfortable saying those two words. “I think when it comes to issues about God, elementary schools and high schools are dangerous places to have these debates,” he argued. He told of his own personal confrontation with the issue when his rabbi told him the God in the pledge was not his God.

Dershowitz distinguished the pledge from other governmental religious references, such as the “In God We Trust” inscription on coins and prayers before sessions of Congress, which he said have no real impact on people’s lives. But things are different, Dershowitz reasoned, when dealing with children.

Dershowitz concluded with a passionate attack on the justness of natural law. “Natural law is an invitation to lawlessness,” he said. He went on to argue that for too long, humans have looked to God to create a just society, with the consequence that we, as humans, have neglected to shape the world that we live in. Our own Constitution is an embodiment of this effort to shape government, and that is why, he argued, “natural law should not be something we feel comfortable resting our Constitution on.”

Notwithstanding a few light moments in the debate (including Kmiec’s comment that he would have to go to confession because he thanked Dershowitz for correcting a comment he made), many students said the debate led them to question their own views on the issue. One student in particular, who chose not to be named, said he went into the debates believing the phrase should remain in the pledge, but left agreeing with Dershowitz.

One-L Peter Leröe-Munoz focused on the argumentative style of Kmiec and Dershowitz: “It was a fanciful political and theological debate, with each side vehemently presupposing the correctness of his case,” he said.

Resurrecting the star chamber

BY CLIFFORD GINN

The Supreme Court recently decided to all but abolish Fifth Amendment rights for prisoners, apparently believing that false confessions are fine, as long as they come from inmates. In McKune v. Lile, the Court upheld a Kansas prison regulation that required sex offenders to participate in a rehabilitation program or else suffer transfer to a maximum security prison facility, with severe limitations on virtually all of their freedoms. This is the same sanction prisoners receive for such infractions as rape, assault and arson. As part of the program, prisoners must confess their crimes and provide written sexual histories, including uncharged criminal offenses. A lie detector confirms the accuracy and completeness of the confessions. Kansas provides no immunity for the statements, and prison officials must report to law enforcement any disclosed sex offenses against minors.

The rationale goes something like this: Rehabilitation is a legitimate penalogical interest. Honesty with therapists and acceptance of responsibility for crimes are crucial for successful rehabilitation. While prisoners have some rights, they are less than those of other citizens, and must yield to legitimate state interests. There are cases that do not find compulsion when an inmate or defendant faces an increased possibility of receiving the death penalty, so this isn’t so bad. Therefore, unless the punishment “constitute[s] atypical and significant hardships in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” it will be deemed insufficiently coercive to compel self-incrimination. It should be noted that the Supreme Court does not consider 30 days in punitive segregation — a brutal, dehumanizing punishment uniformly condemned by every human rights organization I know of — to be “atypical.”

Justice O’Connor’s concurrence provided the fifth vote. She said it would take less than the plurality’s standard to compel self-incrimination, but she didn’t consider the punishment in this case sufficiently coercive, given the record before her.

As Justice O’Connor and the dissent note, the plurality (you know who they are) gets the precedents all wrong. There are four lines of relevant cases. Under the “choice cases,” in a criminal trial, the government may reward testimony, but it cannot punish or give evidentiary weight to silence. In a non-criminal proceeding, the government may command testimony, but only if it provides immunity against prosecution based on that testimony. The government may also give appropriate evidentiary weight to silence in such a proceeding. If the government equates silence with guilt, and automatically imposes punishment, then the case becomes a “penalty case,” and the question is whether the penalty was such that it would compel a reasonable person to incriminate herself.

The plurality treats this as a “choice case,” even though the automatic punishment makes it a “penalty case.” The cases they reference, where an individual’s silence increased his likelihood of receiving the death penalty, were choice cases, making the comparison of the death penalty with the punishment opposed in this case inapposite. Furthermore, both O’Connor and the plurality refuse to acknowledge both the extraordinarily coercive nature of the imposed restrictions on freedom, restrictions calculated to compel inmates to abstain from committing the most egregious offenses, and the coercion that arises from the increased danger to an inmate’s bodily integrity that a transfer to maximum security entails.

A nationwide survey of prisons reveals that prisoners face substantial threats to life and bodily integrity. One federal court found a “culture of sadistic and malicious violence” prevailed in Texas prisons. In 1998, 59 inmates were killed by other inmates, and 6,750 inmates required medical attention as a result of prison violence. As many as 70 percent of all inmates are assaulted every year. Extrapolation from studies suggests that 140,000 male inmates have been raped, and numbers are higher for female inmates. Violent gangs exist in every prison system, and both the unwillingness of prison officials to entertain inmate complaints and of prosecutors to prosecute prison crimes leads to dramatic underreporting of this violence. It seems certain that most of these horrors occur in maximum security prisons, where inmates are more violent, more inmates share a cell, inmates have less money, and more inmates are part of gangs.

If an indigent inmate wants to prove that a threat to place him in such an inferno is coercive, Justice O’Connor apparently expects him to compile data that even well-funded social scientists find difficult to obtain (the plurality would not even change their minds on such a record). This is not unlike the Supreme Court’s conditioning Miranda rights on the requirement that indigent criminal defendants have sufficient familiarity with the U.S. Reports to know the precise words to intone when they ask for a lawyer. This makes a mockery of our criminal justice system, and as is so often the case with this Court’s decisions, the burdens will fall most heavily on those with the least power in our society.

Selling out: In defense of corporate law

By Adam White

For law students eager to enter the world of big firm law, autumn of 2L year brings a refreshing change: For a few weeks, the most oft-uttered phrase on campus ceases to be, “Isn’t there a public policy justification?” Unfortunately, it is replaced by an only slightly less disconcerting phrase: “I’m selling out.”

This too-common description of students’ foray into firm life reflects the Law School’s disappointing failure to instill in students a powerful truth: that the contributions of “Big Firm” lawyers and of corporate legal education at institutions such as Harvard Law are invaluable to the effective leadership of tomorrow’s legal community.

The Law School has never hesitated to cast its mission in lofty terms. According to the 2002-03 Catalog, “[HLS’s] goal is to provide comprehensive training…. The School … seeks to make substantial contributions toward solving society’s complex problems.” But leadership is needed in a variety of arenas, and if the lessons of the past year have taught anything, it is that corporate regulation and deregulation merit a more searching, intellectually honest inquiry than they have received in the recent past. While many have called for more ethical leadership on corporate boards, fewer have publicly demanded knowledgeable leadership on the part of those anointed to govern and regulate these corporations.

Congress demonstrated the ramifications of financial illiteracy in the legal community at its WorldCom hearings last summer. In a moment indicative of an alarming trend, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) asked a former Andersen partner, “How did you not see some red flags when the taxes [of WorldCom]… were so different from what they reported as their earnings?… Would that have helped you possibly uncover the fraud?” [Rep. Maloney, guardian of the Republic, should know that tax accounting and financial accounting are different by law — it’s like the difference between asking how many dependents you have and how many kids you have.]

The questions of Maloney and her peers (GOP and Democrat alike) would be funny were they not depressingly absurd. While such a leadership vacuum has many causes, the search for such causes cannot ignore altogether the derision of corporate law and the big firms that practice it as being qualitatively inferior to the “nobler” academic pursuits of our “future leaders.” Such an atmosphere can inappropriately dissuade America’s bright legal minds from pursuing careers in corporate legal America — perpetuating a leadership vacuum in a field that needs competency now more than ever.

HLS does take steps to promote corporate law — including the recommendation of the “bundled” courses. But for every promotion of corporate law, the Law School provides as many disparaging characterizations of life in corporate law, either explicitly or by implication.

Nowhere is this more obvious than at OPIA, whose mission to open the door to public law often piggybacks upon derision of law firm life. In an excerpt from a book sold and quoted triumphantly on the OPIA website, one author boasts, “I became convinced that neutrality was for the Swiss and determined that, when I grew up, I would not follow the sheep to a big law firm but would instead work to advance truth and justice….” The implication is clear — law firm life is qualitatively inferior to “service” life, and only lemmings pursue private law.

Similarly, the qualitative delineation between “firm work” and “pro bono” is equally harmful and inaccurate. To anoint the ACLU et al. as those working for the “public good,” to the exclusion of corporate law firms is to ignore the incomprehensible importance of the American economy and those who motor it. Lawyers who advocate on behalf of corporate America may be accused of “selling out,” but their contributions to the economic infrastructure have grown the economy, and their legal services protect American entrepreneurs from legislators whose forays into economic regulation would otherwise go unchecked. That’s a whole lot of bono, OPIA’s pronouncements notwithstanding.

Where students are not actively reminded of the importance of corporate legal expertise, extracurricular avenues for their study fail to materialize. Thus, HLS lacks student-edited journals or clinical programs devoted to technical corporate law. In a feedback loop, this is both a symptom and a source of the problem: Students cannot engage corporate law in a practical academic environment, which lends to the impression that corporate law is intellectually inferior to legal historicism, politicking and “legal aid” endeavors, which further dissuades students from pursuing the corporate environment.

HLS has produced leaders who take on corporate malfeasance, such as New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, HLS ’84 (who honed his skills in private practice). Just as importantly, the school has produced lawyers who defend America’s productive companies from the creeping tendencies of an increasingly burdensome regulatory Leviathan. But one must hope that the brilliant corporate minds of tomorrow will be produced by HLS, not in spite of it.

Letters from Berkeley: The simplicity of senselessness

BY COLLEEN CHEN

In the course of my summer living and working in Belgium, I came across a small monastic community in the Ardennes, led by a Dutch shaman with an eclectic past — a former United Nations employee in the Middle East, who then became a Sufi master for a dozen years before beginning his own teachings.

I had gone to Belgium almost randomly — following a course powered by what I call “intuitive decisionmaking.” Basically, this just means that I have no rational goals in mind when faced with a choice, except that something just “feels right.” And it means also that it’s impossible to make a wrong choice.

Of course, this form of decisionmaking has its drawbacks. When it came to my summer job, it had me going to a small human rights nongovermental organization in a yuppie city, where I was getting little money and no legal training and where the most prestigious contact I made was with the Belgian leader of the largest UFO-related religious movement in Europe.

But, that’s beside the point. Belgium was where my intuition took me, and by my first weekend there I’d already discovered this shamanic ashram, where the basic philosophy was that the only thing we can really know is that there is something greater that we’re a part of. The nature of this is beyond our comprehension, so we might as well vibrate at love.

What made the whole experience at this ashram so unique was how devoid it was of an intellectual, analytical, rational grounding. Being in this vibration — basically, being surrounded by people who shared this perspective — allowed me to open up and enjoy the panoply of strange experiences to be had. I participated in daily meditations where we shook rattles and made low humming noises, meant to integrate the right and left brains. I went on Alice-in-Wonderland-like shamanic dream journeys led by the sexy head monk, meant to expand my “causal vision,” that deeply intuitive sight that’s freed of the emotionally charged filters that normally control the way we see the world. I entered “deep states of annihilation” in a longer ritual featuring the shaman ringing bells. They drummed and rattled in what appeared to my incense-drugged consciousness to be some strange parody of a Salvation Army Santa, accompanied by images of Hello Kitty and other “power animals” dancing across my brain, and a sensation that the borders of my body were dissolving.

The simplicity of the senselessness worked. The total lack of judgment from those around me was amazing — an example of this was that one woman I made friends with told me that she didn’t even notice I was Asian for a week! The open-hearted philosophy, the idea of compassion with detachment, allowed transcendence of judgments.

Being one of those people with a world savior complex, I asked the shaman at one point how one person could most effectively change society. And why, I asked, were the great “realized” people of all spiritual traditions unable to end conflicts, since supposedly they’d evolved to a state where their will could move mountains?

“If you think of yourself as a drop in the ocean, it’s impossible to change the ocean,” he told me. “If you think of yourself as the ocean, then whatever you do, you’re changing the ocean.”

Implicit in his response was the answer to my other question. Thinking of conflicts or disasters impending or realized as separate from the whole “ocean” of human experience, as problems to be solved like cancers to be removed from a body, was an attitude that could only have limited success. Addressing only one problematic piece of the totality in isolation from the rest doesn’t get to the source of the problem, merely perpetuating a state of disequilibrium. That source lies in the imbalance of the whole, and therefore can only ever be solved by looking at the whole.

This perspective is what I got from my summer. So I’ve begun my third year now as an exchange student at Boalt, trying to maintain this attitude — of being the ocean, not getting caught up in the worries of what on earth I’ll be qualified to do or what I’ll even want to do after this year is over. The idea is that as the ocean, my lifeforce flows out to balance where balance is needed, and I don’t have to control anything. Opportunities will appear, and the universe will provide the means to take my next steps.

It’s a wonderful idea — to let go and stop fighting, as a drop, for footholds in water. Intellectually the idea doesn’t seem too compatible with a legal career, but with a little shift in perspective it makes all the sense in the world.

1L Experience: Join my organization!

BY JEREMY BLACHMAN

“I’m having pizza at the Prison Legal Assistance Program meeting, dessert at the Society for Law, Life and Lemon Meringue, and cocktails at the Target Shooting Club’s practice round.” Sound like your life? Anyone who’s been worried about cooking dinner anytime over the last couple of weeks simply hasn’t joined enough organizations. There’s no excuse for it.

My biggest worry coming here was that, outside of schoolwork, there’d be nothing to do. I’m realizing that’s an unfounded concern. Clearly, if we’re looking to fill time, we’ve got lots of choices, ranging from the Interdenominational Alliance for Israel to Justice for Palestine. And most of them come with food. (Although probably not a barbecue at the Student Animal Defense Fund meeting.)

I’ve definitely taken advantage. I went to the Federalist Society’s barbecue last weekend. I have nothing against Federalists – I think Madison was a fine President – but I can’t honestly say I self-identify as one. But it was lunchtime, I was hungry… my only slip-up was when I mentioned I spent a summer in Washington interning for… uh… Senator Schumer (D-NY). He ain’t no Federalist. Oops. But the food was good.

The real meat and potatoes of it all seems to be the Journals. I went to the Journals Fair, and I listened really carefully, but I’m still having trouble telling the difference between the dozen of ’em.

The speeches all sounded kind of like this:

“Good evening. I’m Law McLawyer, this year’s assistant managing associate editor for the Journal on Cheese. I know you’ve been sitting through a lot of speeches this evening, but I think you’ll find this one is different because of the unique opportunities afforded by joining the Journal on Cheese – opportunities that are identical to those offered by all of the other journals.

“The Journal on Cheese is a relatively small journal, with roughly the same amount of people as all of the other journals. We publish a series of articles in each of our issues, which come out a number of times throughout the year and are, if I may be so bold as to say, the longest journal issues on campus, approximately the same length as the issues of all the other journals.

“Last year, we published a fascinating article about the dried-up cheese on the outside of a bowl of French Onion soup written by a third-year student. We have copies outside at our table if you’re interested, along with some candy – the same candy, in fact, as all of the other journals have at their tables.

“The Journal on Cheese is really a fun organization to be a part of. We’re committed to being not just a sweatshop for first-year students desperate to pad their resumes, but we also host a number of social events each year. That number is one. And the event is next week, when we will be hosting an open house to get you to sign up.

“We’re unique in that 1Ls play an integral role at the Journal on Cheese. That role is helping us say that we have first-years on our journal without having to lie. In addition, from your work at the journal and your attendance at our meetings, there’s the possibility of making one or two – and even in a few rare cases, three – friends. Some of the best people I’ve met at Harvard, I’ve met because of the Journal on Cheese.

“In closing, I think it’s quite clear why the Journal on Cheese provides the best and most unique opportunities on campus, opportunities that are exactly the same as all of the other journals. I hope you’ll visit us at our table outside the lecture hall and sign up to receive reams of information about cheese of all kinds. Thank you for listening, and I hope to see you all at our open house, which we’ve conveniently scheduled at exactly the same time as all of the other journals’ open houses.”

I’m going to start my own student organization: the Free Food Society. No pretense about any actual events, any broader purpose, or any way to impress future employers. You come to a meeting, you get free food, and you leave. Well, you don’t have to leave. You can stay. I’ve got some subciting you can work on.

A gag order hits the (almost) all-male Review

BY GREG LIPPER

Of the 88 members of the Harvard Law Review, only 28 are women. This year’s incoming class of 43 contained only 11 women. So how is the Review addressing the situation?

Well, I’d tell you, but then I’d be violating the Review’s Rule of Confidentiality: Anything that happens at any meeting, any statistics or other data that are generated relevant to this or any other problem, cannot be shared with anyone outside of the Law Review community. Among most members, this “rule” is accepted as gospel like the common law itself. You won’t find it written down anywhere — as far as anyone can tell, this rule has never been voted on or enacted pursuant to any procedure. But it’s a presence nonetheless — the straitjacket of silence is wrapped around Gannett House.

So guess what, 1L women: The Law Review is holding a party to figure out how many of you will join our ranks next year. Not only aren’t you invited, but we’re not even going to tell you what kind of cake is being served. In both its maleness and its secrecy, the Law School’s bedrock of legal scholarship is beginning to look more and more like the Catholic Church. Perhaps we should be called the Cardinal Law Review.

In most cases, secrecy on the Law Review makes sense. For instance, candid debate about the selection of articles requires that students speak openly without fear of retaliation by professors who might get wind of their comments. But when the subject of the debate shifts from the ivory tower to the glass ceiling, this silence is deafening.

The Review may be a nominally independent organization. I’ll even overlook its free rental of Gannett House from HLS, the Dean’s ex officio seat on its Board, and its prominent link on the HLS website. But whatever its technical status, the Review is a central symbol of HLS merit, and a critical rung on the ladder to legal power. Granted, the Law Review is certainly not the end-all, be-all of legal success (Laurence Tribe didn’t make law review, after all). But all things being equal, those lucky enough to make Law Review will be teaching the next generation of law students and making the next generation of laws. The Harvard Law Review is not the bridge club; it’s a bridge to the legal elite.

If Arthur Miller were to walk into the first day of Civil Procedure and inform his students that their exams would be graded only by their classmates, protests would erupt. And yet policy decisions that are often just as important to students’ futures are reserved for the 85 or so 2Ls and 3Ls who can’t help but be more concerned with their position in the rat race than with those who are still shackled to the starting line. Indeed, Law Review gender affirmative action has traditionally been most strongly opposed by many of its women, who fear that enactment of an affirmative action policy will lead others to question their “merit.” There may be something to this position. But the fact remains: those who have already climbed up the ladder always have an easier time kicking it down. Those who got kicked off the ladder are rarely considered and are almost never consulted.

When racial tension plagued the Law School last year, students couldn’t go ten minutes without receiving an e-mail from some Dean assuring us that the law school was going to take action. Though the problem emanated from a single 1L section, it was viewed as a significant problem affecting the entire campus, and there was no shortage of open discussion. Yet when the subject is a chronic problem of equal representation on the Law Review, the discussion never leaves Gannett House. Even The RECORD’s recent article about the issue quoted exclusively Law Review members. Was the rest of the school’s line busy?

Many students on the Law Review have taken a legitimate interest in remedying its gender imbalance, and many of them are working hard to devise what they believe will be workable solutions. For the most part, the Law Review’s membership cares a great deal about its gender problem. But the reality remains: A group of 85 2Ls and 3Ls, an overwhelming majority of whom are male, are assuming complete responsibility for solving a social problem with implications for women in the entire Law School as well as the legal profession. And they refuse to tell people what they are thinking until they have already made up their mind.