In life there comes a time to hold ’em and a time to fold ’em. This summer, I folded.

A couple of months ago, I was so overwhelmed with projects at work and life that it kept me up at night. I was so consumed with all the thoughts constantly rushing through my head that it affected how I interacted with people and the amount of quality sleep I got each night, and I was having a difficult time managing stress. In addition, I found it extremely difficult to focus at work.

After two months of long hours and groggy days, I learned two very important lessons:

1. It’s okay to ask for help.
2. A good psychiatrist with a liberal view on doling out prescriptions makes everything better.

Keep numbers one and two in mind, because they are important life lessons that it took me 28 years to learn.

It’s Okay to Ask for Help

I work in a very small office, and the work we do should really be taken on by an army at least three times our current size. That leaves a little number of people to do a big amount of work. We get it done, but it takes a lot of effort and many early mornings and late nights.

One day last week, I was feelingly particularly swamped. At the end of the day, I went into my boss’ office for a quick recap of what was going on for the rest of the week. As we talked, I finally came out and said, “this is a lot, and I’m a little bit overwhelmed.” I didn’t even look at her, because I half expected to be fired on the spot.

Instead, she said, “I was wondering how long it would take for you to ask for help! Listen, we work a lot here, but a big part of your professional development will be learning when to ask for help and learning when to say no. It’s okay to say no. Not a lot, but every once in a while. Just, you know…don’t make it a habit.”

A good psychiatrist makes everything better

I really wanted an Adderall prescription to help me focus at work, so I asked some doctor friends what buzz words I should use during my psychiatrist appointment.

Thanks to those friends, and my uncanny ability to memorize key terminology, I walked out of that appointment with two prescriptions for Adderall and Ativan. Ativan, my friends, is an anti-anxiety medication, and it is EVERYTHING. You take it right before bed, and you get a smooth eight hours of uninterrupted sleep. In addition, you wake up with little to no worries. I’m obsessed. Work isn’t super busy anymore, so I’ve cooled it on the Adderall, but my relationship with Ativan is perhaps my most important relationship to date.

I almost feel silly for not being on this winning combination of prescription drugs during law school. If I had to do law school over again, I would definitely get medicated.Seriously. Back then, I was a bit of a hippie; I believed that water and yoga can heal anything. I still believe that to be the case 95 percent of the time, but when the going gets rough…Ativan.

This ends my love letter to stress management. I also promise to be back in a more regular capacity because, really, I have no excuse.

—

Peter Davidson (@PeterDavidsonII) is a young lawyer rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of life after law school in the current legal economy. 

Featured image courtesy of [Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Managing Stress in a Stressful Legal Career appeared first on Law Street.

First of all, I apologize for the spotty posting in “Life of a Legal Post Grad.”  Apparently the real life of a legal post-grad is filled with long days and little-to-no room for creativity.  In fact, I may or may not be dictating this into my iPhone as I drive (JUST KIDDING FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL!!!).

Being super busy in one aspect of my life has forced me to balance everything else, and it is extremely difficult. It’s probably, or definitely, the reason why I’ve gained weight (p.s. if you’re interested those extra pounds that I gained are gone), or spoken to family and friends less, or not really gone out in Miami. After a (very) long day, I’m content to just sit on the couch, watch TV, and turn off my phone.*

Anyway, this balancing act made me think that I need to become more of a self-starter. Self-starters are those who are proactive in the various facets of life: working out, household chores, responding to personal e-mails after a long day, etc.

I, on the other hand, am most certainly NOT a self-starter. When I work out, I need to either (a) have a workout partner to motivate me; (b) have a personal trainer; (c) take a class; or (d) have a really important event on the horizon. Unfortunately, right now, I have none of that, so I don’t really care. Sorry, not sorry.

I attack household chores with the same fervor, aka no fervor at all.

I’m trying! Mark my words: 2014 is the year that I become more proactive and less reactive. More offensive and less defensive! I’m going to do more and sit less!

I promise.

By the end of this year, I will (hopefully) be able to successfully juggle a very demanding job, some semblance of a personal life, a relatively tidy home, and especially be more on top of my baby, “Life of a Legal Post Grad.”

It’s going to be a gradual evolution, but I’ve got seven months to make progress! And so do you…let’s begin this proactive/self-starter/go-getter lifestyle together!!! Please? I need an accountability partner.

Next week, we discuss my co-dependency.

*JK! Post-law school, apparently you NEVER turn your phone off.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII

Featured image courtesy of [dodge challenger1 via Wikipedia]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post (Self) Starting Your Engines! appeared first on Law Street.

In trying to impress at my job, I’ve noticed a shift in priorities. Gone are the days where I have time to do back-to-back classes at my gym and then go for a run. Instead, I spend much of my free time thinking about work or working. #worklifebalance

I still try to eat healthily, but the reality is that when I’m stressed out I become a garbage disposal. It’s not pretty and I’m not proud of it. For years, I’ve relied on my metabolism to get me through these binges. At the ripe age of 27 (almost 28…sheesh), my body is rebelling. My body is a traitor.

The treasonous activity started about two weeks ago, when I walked into my apartment from work. There are lots of mirrors in my place (I’m vain), and as I passed one in the entryway to my bedroom I peripherally noticed that my stomach entered the room before I did.

Okay, so maybe I’ve been “too busy” to go to the gym.  Maybe I’ve discovered a delicious pizza place that delivers to my apartment.  Maybe I thought calories, much like the moon landing, were fictitious.*

Whatever the case, I am getting perilously close to chunky town, and I have worked too hard to go back! Correct: I’ve forgotten where I came from!

I’ve started a new regimen though, so salvation isn’t too far (hopefully).  Once I came to terms with my fledgling obesity, I decided to make Michelle Obama proud and get fit!

I’m back to working out before work, which means waking up before the sun rises. Ugh. I’ve also started a meal delivery plan, which I plan to use for the next three to four months. Double ugh (Yes I recognize that these steps are extreme, but I’m the #ManInMiami, there is pressure here!).

I guess the moral of this story is the pursuit of greatness at work has tipped the work-life balance scales, which resulted in a ten-pound weight gain and the unfortunate protrusion of my stomach.

Please note that I’m going to be a very unhappy camper for the next few months. Why, you ask?

*the moon landing is totally real!

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII

Featured image courtesy of  [Alan Cleaver via Wikipedia]; As always, .gifs from RealityTVgifs

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post These Pounds Aren’t Loyal appeared first on Law Street.

Me, I’m a part of your circle of friends.  And we, notice you don’t come around…

One good thing about working in the legal industry is that you are privy to a lot of information. As legal professionals, we are exposed to a lot through contracts, mergers and acquisitions, and discovery during litigation.

I have been at my job for three months now, and I work a lot. I work hard. I do this for many reasons: (a) I work with hardworking people, and I want them to respect my own work ethic; (b) I love my job; and (c) I want them to know that they can trust me with major projects. I want to have my hand in as much as I can reasonably handle.

I want to be in the circle of trust.

I remember my internships and clerkships in law school, where I’d work really hard for three to four months in hopes of making a good impression on would-be employers. The thing with those positions was that I knew there was an end date. No matter how busy I got, or what project I was on, I knew that my work wouldn’t go further than my last day. That meant that I wasn’t always able to be in the secret meetings. I wasn’t in the circle of trust.

To be honest, I didn’t want to be in the inner circle back then. I didn’t care then as much as I do now. Perhaps it’s because this is my first “real job,” or maybe I’m just growing up, but I’m working on getting in the circle now!

Also, if you’re still wondering, I am still very tired. Weaseling my way into the circle of trust takes a lot of time and work. I’m convincing myself that inner circle membership results in mandatory daily naps. *Fingers crossed*

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Working Up the Ladder & Into the Circle of Trust appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve been gone for a minute, now I’m back with the jump off.

Where have I been?

I’ve been MIA in MIA for a couple of weeks now, which I’m sure has been devastating for some readers…right? (Editor’s note: YES!)

My job has been crazy recently! By crazy, I mean 12-hour days and weekends. It’s a lot of work, but I actually still like what I’m doing (which is a good thing). Besides, I’ve complained enough about being fun-employed; I can’t start complaining about actually having a job — then I’d sound like a bratty millennial.

This is why we all went to law school, right?  I mean, we were warned that these days would come: early mornings, long nights, busy weekends, and frequent cancellations of previously made plans.

All of this work can be overwhelming. Last Monday night I was driving home from work and called one of my friends. Rihanna* (not her real name) is a second-year associate at a big law firm in New York. Rihanna makes tons of money and works all of the time. Our conversation went something like this:

Me: “Hey, how are you? How’s work? I’m headed home after 14 hours and am so exhausted!”

Rihanna: “I’m good, just busy. I turned in three memos today and got assignments for five more. It never stops!”

Me: “I know! I mean, I’m not complaining, I like my job, but…I miss sitting on my couch doing nothing. It never happens anymore!”

Rihanna: “Correct. It won’t happen for a few more months, either. Just get used to it; you’re the newest person at your job now, but you won’t always be at the bottom. Soon you’ll be delegating your crappy work to someone else. Until then, take your vitamins and try and create some semblance of a routine.”

This was some good advice, and I’m trying my hardest to follow it exactly. I wake up obscenely early to get to the gym and eat breakfast, which usually results in (i) extra energy, and (ii) increased productivity. Jealous?

I’m now fully realizing the major lesson of law school: getting as much out of your body and brain while giving it as little rest and relaxation as possible. The delicate imbalance of physical activity (working) and mental breaks (sleeping) is perfected during the 3-4 years of law school, and by the time we’re done taking the bar we really have it down pat.

I know it won’t always be like this, and in a couple of weeks I’ll get back to sleeping 8-ish hours a night. Until then, I’ll maintain an unhealthy daily intake of caffeine (green tea!) and perhaps invest in some stay-awake pills. It worked for Jessie Spano, right?

But seriously…I’m tired.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of David Goehring via Flickr

.gifs courtesy of RealityTVgifs

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post But This Lawyer is le Tired appeared first on Law Street.

This week Law Street broke the story of the FBI’s latest violent crime data — if you haven’t checked it out yet you definitely should. This week, though, I want to talk about crimes of defamation, because though they are rarely discussed, they have similar ability to do serious harm to a person’s life. These are caused by careless, negligent, and often malicious words of one person against another. Some of these people are just talking to hear their own voices, and some are liars — there is a special place in hell for liars.

Crimes of defamation are rarely talked about on a large scale because, really, how do you quantify them?  Where do we draw the line between “Freedom of speech” and “defamatory content?” The area between the two is gray, but the laws exist to determine what is casual conversation and what is illegal.

The Supreme Court defines defamation as a four-element offense, which requires:

1. A false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity;
2. Publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
3. Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence;  and,
4. Some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. 
   

Some states, like New York, take these federal guidelines a step further and determine various rules for defamation depending on the person being defamed. The first category is for “private” people — a group into which most of us fall. Private people are more broadly protected. If you negligently say something that is defamatory against me, and the above four elements are met, you’ve broken the law. It’s that simple!

New York also has two other classes: public official and public figure. President Barack Obama is a public official; Kim Kardashian is a public figure. (Get the difference?) These people have taken steps to thrust themselves into the public consciousness, and with widespread notoriety comes widespread ridicule and judgment. I believe the legal term is “Mo Money, Mo Problems.”

When dealing with Kim Kardashian, President Obama, or any other public person, New York mandates that a fifth requirement must be met: the defamatory speech must be malicious. Malice requires a specific intent to cause harm to a person — it’s a tougher hurdle to jump, but the rewards are much greater. When a U.K. newspaper claimed that Liberace was gay in the late 50s, he sued it for defamation and libel and was awarded a large amount of money. Tom Cruise won a similar suit, and let’s not forget when Lindsay Lohan tried to sue E-Trade for their drunk baby named “Lindsay.”

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

The law says that truth is an affirmative defense to any claim of defamation. That is, if the defamatory statement is based on a true story, the speech is within the bounds of the law. This makes sense, right?  If you are a known thief, and someone tells their best friend that you steal, that is totally okay.

What’s not okay is when the defamation occurs and is based on untrue information. The law recognizes that the power of words and one’s reputation can carry a person very far, and does its best to protect an otherwise innocent person from being victimized by lies and rumors.

The point of these defamation laws is to combat that victimization. Because of these laws, an unfairly accused or viciously maligned person can stand firm in her innocence or his correct assertion. An easy way to do this is to have an adjudicatory decision in your favor, i.e. you’ve gone to court and won. In other words, proof is of paramount importance when attempting to bolster one’s argument in a defamation case.

“Show Me the Receipts!”

There are various ways to determine if something is true or false, and one of the easiest ways to make that determination is to review the record. Courts and triers of fact rely on hundreds of thousands, likely even millions, of pages of documents annually in order to parse out the truth from all of malarky. That is why law schools across the country focus on organization, meticulous record keeping, and the importance of creating a paper trail. It’s why we create elaborate filing systems, why every document is backed up, and why everything is committed to writing. The quickest way to piss off a lawyer is to make an assertion without substantiating evidence.

50 Cent, the Poet Laureate of the early 2000s, put it best when he said, “I talk a lot of shit, but I can back it up.”

The moral of the story is that crime is a problem, but we need to broaden the discussion. All criminal activity is reprehensible, and when the law is broken there need to be consequences. The law exists so that criminals don’t do whatever they want to do, and the same preclusions apply with words.

And if all else fails, don’t lie.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of [Angie Linder/Christina via Flickr]

The blog that feeds my insatiable hunger for “RHONJ” .gifs: RealityTVgifs

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Liar, Liar Pants on Fire appeared first on Law Street.

I recently read a quote that said something along the lines of, “Choosing the right job is nowhere near as important as choosing the right boss.” When I first read that in early 2014, I had no idea how significant it would become in my life. As I’ve chronicled here, much has changed, and I now recognize the importance of a great supervisor and mentor.

As with everything in 2014, I have lucked out in the “right boss” category. The legal department at my job is very small, and I interact with my boss more than ten times a day. Our exchanges are so informative, and I told her recently that I have learned as much in my month of employment under her than in the entire last semester of law school.

Did you catch it?

A supervisor will give you a vague idea of what he wants and expects you to piece together the statements to paint the picture that he has in his head. A good boss, on the other hand, makes sure that you understand what she wants you to do and why. This tiny distinction makes a huge difference in the formation of a great lawyer, as opposed to a good one.

For example, I was tasked with drafting a contract that required very specific language, part of which was a provision that I never learned in law school. I’m not knocking my legal education at all, but this particular contract term was never part of our lectures. (I double checked with a couple of first-year section mates, and they were as clueless as I was.) Anyway, as I sat in my boss’ office, she mentioned the term that she wanted me to add to the contract, and my face must have given away my cluelessness.

Instead of firing me on the spot for being a bit of a himbo, she instead took ten minutes to explain the legal foundation behind the term, the reason that many law schools don’t cover it in a first-year Contracts class, and why it mattered for our particular line of work. It was among the most informative discussions I’ve ever had about a legal concept, and I valued the time she took to show me the ropes.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a good boss.

In my office, we are all working toward the same goal. Everyone is passionate and works really hard, and there is a real sense of teamwork everyday. In addition, egos are checked at the door and competition is not a word we use. Instead, we all humble ourselves and prepare for ten-to-twelve-hour days figuring out how to help our company continue to prosper. It is an awesome work environment, and it’s the first of all of my legal jobs to be like this.

As I started thinking of the subject of this blog, I wondered why my office is so collegial, and I came up with these three important reasons.

1. Size: Our company is very small — fewer than twenty people. We put on large-scale events all over the world, and we contract out a lot of the help, but the core team is very contained. We all know what the goals are for the event, our divisions, and the company as a whole, and everyone truly recognizes that he or she is an important cog in the machine.
2. Location: I work in Miami Beach. Let’s call a spade a spade: winter sucks, cold weather sucks, freezing rain sucks, and heavy jackets suck. My co-workers and I don’t have to deal with any of that, though; we work in Miami (yes, I’m still rubbing it in)! It’s gorgeous here and, as I said last time, it doesn’t get better than wearing shorts in January. Jealous? #OurManInMiami
3. Comprehensive Interview Processes: My interview was very long, and the people with whom I now work spent a lot of time figuring out how I think, how I work, and whether my personality would mesh well with everyone else in the office. I’m used to working for large government agencies where it’s easy to avoid contact with co-workers. At this job, it’s the complete opposite. Not only will I see all of my co-workers in a given day, I’ll see them multiple times. For that reason, our company really strives to make sure that everyone will work together.

On a final note, having the right boss who knows when to delegate really makes everyone’s job easier. We work long, hard hours, but there is very little stress. Everyone knows what his task is, and the completion of the task helps us reach the goal faster. I guess what I’m trying to say is, teamwork makes a dream work, and my beach is better. Capiche?

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of [TheMuuj via Flickr]

.gifs: RealityTVgifs

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Choosing the Right Boss appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to “Life of a Legal Post Grad,” a column which will quite soon be serving its initial purpose: describing the life of a young legal professional navigating his way through this crazy world of the law.

By “quite soon” I mean in a couple of days. I’ve been at my job for two weeks now and I already have (awesome) stories. Stay tuned. This week, though, let’s talk about this crazy-fast transition that I’m going through in my life. Mmmmmk?

To recap: 2013 was dark. Like…Disney dark. (P.S., if you don’t get the dark undertones in most Disney movies, you should set aside a few hours this weekend and rewatch your childhood favorites, because…whoa). The lone highlight of 2013 was seeing Rihanna in concert. I kept saying, “2014 has to be better.”

Well, here we are, and 2014 is covered in light, roses, bunnies, and all other things good and cute.  I may be the happiest that I’ve ever been in my adult life. Why, you ask? Because of all the ch-ch-ch-changes!

First of all, I have a legal job that I love.  It’s only been a week and a half, but everything is coming up roses so far. I work for a really cool company, I do dynamic legal work, and I work with awesome and intelligent people. Every day I’m challenged and pushed to be better, which is what I had in mind when I first entered law school. This job actually makes me want to be a lawyer, which is new and unexpected. BUT ENOUGH ABOUT THAT!

Second, the weather: let’s talk about wearing shorts and flip-flops in January. Or we can discuss reviewing contracts poolside. Entertain the notion of shifting the liability to a third party on the beach, even. All of these are now my options! Two weeks ago I lived in D.C.; the same D.C. that was shut down for two days last week because of the resurgence of the polar vortex (speaking of, that weather pattern really sucks).

The “downside” to life (just kidding! there is none!) is driving everywhere. I’m a walker. I’ve previously lived in Washington, D.C., Boston, and New York: all of these are major cities with wide-ranging public transportation systems and a walkable urban plan that renders ownership of a car unnecessary and burdensome. Friends, Florida is not like that; a car is a necessary part of life. Now I’m a commuter! Every morning I wake up, start my car, drive to Starbucks, and sit in highway traffic on my way to work (if you care, I take 95 to 195). This may seem normal to some, but I have literally never had to be so alert before 9:00 a.m. In fact, for the first few days of commuting, I drove in absolute silence with my hands resolutely placed at the 10:00 and 2:00 positions. Every five minutes I’d say out loud: “Don’t kill yourself or anyone else.” Luckily I’m more comfortable now, and it’s become less of a burden. Sometimes I even get a bit of road rage, and then I’m all:

All in all, I’m having an amazing time. I have a newfound admiration for the law — so much so that I plan on taking the Florida Bar exam this summer. I never thought I would voluntarily sit for the bar exam, but I figure if I want to make a life and career here, it’s the next logical step. More importantly, it’s what my instincts are telling me to do, and I’m still inclined to follow them. It’s worked out so far!

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of [Sandra Cohen-Rose and Colin Rose via Flickr]

Featured .gifs courtesy of [RealityTVgifs]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Times They Are a-Changin’ appeared first on Law Street.

“And when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.”  – Paulo Coelho, The Alchemist

Oh hey.  What’s up?

Welcome to the January 15 edition of “Life of a Legal Post Grad.” I’ve been writing this blog for almost five months, and it has served as a capsule of what my mindset was during the tail end of 2013.  I have been anxious, tired, pissed, over it, hopeful, and many other emotions.  When I look back on this post five months from now, I will know what I was feeling: excitement.

I’ve got news.

I’m writing this from sunny south Florida, a state to which I have relocated.

You read that correctly.

I moved!

I spent much of last year talking and writing about either being totally unfulfilled and/or not following my gut.  This year, I figured I had two options: keep complaining or do something new.  I chose the latter. Why did I move?  At first the reasons were purely selfish.  I have a few friends down here, and after last week’s Polar Vortex I knew that I needed a major change.

Don’t worry, I didn’t completely shift life plans.  I have a new and awesome (legal) job, about which I am extremely excited.  We’ll talk about it another time. I have a place to stay, which is a terrible thing to call where I live.  I have a new “home,” and I am excited that it has become my home so quickly.

Living down here is completely not a part of the plan that I had for my life. The last six months of 2013 made me realize that plans frequently sink faster than you can say “you sunk my battleship!”  I embraced change and am really excited to see where this new path takes me!

Things I’ve noticed in my first 36 hours as a south Florida resident: it is much easier to be productive in cold weather.  In my first day and a half here, I have: gone to dinner, gone to breakfast, gone to lunch, dropped off forms at my new job, gone to happy hour, gone to dinner again, cracked my iPhone screen (ughhh), and watched “Vanderpump Rules.” Things I have not done in my first 36 hours here: grocery shopped, looked for a gym or yoga studio, purchased sunscreen. Oh well.  I will get to all of the important stuff in the next few days.

For now, I’m just kind of marveling at the awesomeness that is 2014.  I decided on January 2 that I was going to move down here for an extended period and figure out my life.  On January 3, I started applying to legal and non-legal jobs.  I knew that applying to jobs in this area would be difficult for many reasons, mainly: (1) I had applied to literally hundreds of jobs in D.C. and New York.  If I couldn’t find jobs in the two main legal markets, there is no way I’d find one in Miami; (2) I took the New York bar, not the Florida bar, and there is no reciprocity; and (3) I have absolutely no ties to this city, save for a few friends.  I had resigned myself to living down here and being a socialite.

Instead, I heard back from two or three jobs within days.  I had lined up interviews for when I moved down here, and I figured I’d be working somewhere by the end of the month. Here’s where it gets crazy (or cray cray, as the kids say): one of the jobs pushed my interview up a week and conducted it via Skype, then offered me the position at the end of the interview. What’s more cray cray? I accepted!

I start my new job very soon, and I’m so excited.  More importantly, I work for an AWESOME company.  I’ll talk about what I do at a later date, but trust me when I say that you will die. Not literally, but in a very figurative sense you will die. And, the job is legal! I talked so much trash for years about not wanting to be a traditional lawyer, and it turns out that’s exactly what I will be for the next few years. I may even learn to like this profession.

For all who have read this weekly column and seen the evolution of my complaints, thank you for bearing with me.  For all who had a similarly unfortunate 2013 and are looking forward to an awesome 2014, it’s coming.

Lastly, “Life of a Legal Post Grad” is about to get a lot more legal. Sorry in advance!

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of [Timothy Wildey via Flickr]

.gifs courtesy of RealityTVgifs

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Surprise! You’re Hired appeared first on Law Street.

Unfortunately, it’s a tugboat and not a yacht, but whatever, we’ll get there.

It’s the first full week of the year, which means everyone is likely back at work or school. I’m sure we are all sharing the same levels of excitement about that fact.

In the spirit of this new year, I’ve decided to come out of hiding. For the past four or five months, I have been a ghost. Something about my life not being “perfect” in comparison to everyone else’s made me a bit of a social recluse. Obviously I still showered daily, went to the gym, returned (some) texts and emails, and made rare appearances at events, but my calendar was mostly empty.

Now that I’m a real person again, I’ve been making an effort to see and speak with my friends from whom I hid for so long. The good news: they don’t all hate me for being a terribly selfish person in the last quarter of 2013. The better news: their lives are, in fact, not perfect.  I repeat, they are living imperfect lives!

This fact may make me sound like a Debbie Downer who is all about ruining fun. Correct! I am.

More importantly, though, I was reminded of the all-important fact that the grass isn’t always greener. Through every problem that I thought I had, it turns out that I was not alone in my dramatic misery.

Problem 1: The Fun, Single Days are Long Gone

It turns out that this is a gross overexaggeration. Realistically, twenty percent of my friends are married, twenty-five percent are engaged, and thirty-five percent are in serious relationships. That leaves twenty percent of my friends to be single and fun with, but it’s not the same! Not to mention, I’m 27. That’s the age where it all starts happening: folks get married, have kids, and forget about me. ME!

Well, they may forget about me (all in my head), but they never forget about the fun years. Two things to think about:

1) Your married friends are jealous of you. Not all of the time; heck,  not the majority of the time.  Every once in a while, though, they have flashbacks to spring break 2006 and a single tear strolls steadily down their right cheek. That is where your power lies. Think about it: if you’re single, you can say “I want to hang out this weekend,” and it magically happens. When you’re married, it’s more of a “we want to see what you are doing three weeks from now when both of our schedules allow us to see you.”  Being part of a “we” is fun, and maybe even the ideal, but sometimes they miss the days when being an “I” was enough.

2) Marriage/engagement/Velcro-relationships do not render your friends dead and gone. I fully and proudly admit that all of my friends have awesome spouses, many of whom I consider friends now.  Let’s call a spade a spade: I like some of my friends’ significant others more than I like my friends.  Now I’ve said it! And yes, if that statement worries you, then you’re the friend I’m talking about.

Moving on…

Problem 2: I Can’t Find a Job!

So, many people that I graduated with are still unemployed. That sucks, but your jobs are coming friends (this is my new positive outlook, courtesy of 2014). We’re only nine days in, and remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day.  In the end, you want your legal career to be like the Roman Empire anyway, right? Slowgoing at first, but after a few years it really takes off and you become a legal powerhouse. I mean, the Romans ruled the world for a very long time, but it took them a while to find their footing. Remember: if it’s good enough for Rome, it’s good enough for you!

In addition, allow me to shine some light in your tunnel of unemployment: working sucks. It sucks!  I live in Washington, D.C., and it is currently seven degrees. (Oh hey, Polar Vortex). Do you know what seven degrees feels like? It feels like weather that necessitates a day in bed watching a “Vanderpump Rules” marathon on Bravo, hiding under eight different blankets, and spending unthinkable amounts of  money on Seamless web. In other words, it’s a day in which one is not supposed to leave home.

But no, some gender-neutral person has decided that our society must be based on capitalism, so we need to go to work and make money. I have so many layers of clothing on that I look like I gained a solid sixty pounds in eight hours. It’s not attractive.

You, on the other hand, can sit on that couch, apply to jobs, and be comfortable in your underwear. I am not ashamed to admit my jealousy.

Problem 3: I Have a Job, but I Hate My Career 

If you hate your career, start looking elsewhere. Get out of that job! Life’s way too short. It’s 2014, and we’re not taking any of the crap from 2013 with us anymore. Plus, you know what “they” say: the best time to look for a new job is when you have one. Try and be discreet about your employment desires, because the last thing you want to do is piss off your current boss. Wait until you’ve gotten the new job and your obligations with the current company are donezo.

But the new job is coming. I hope you leave all of the baggage from the Challenger-like tragedies of last year in a garbage can, along with that sequined New Year’s Eve dress and “2014” glasses. (Sidenote: those glasses need to stop being a thing — they’re disgusting.)

The Takeaway

Here is the moral: whether you’re single, married, fat, thin, freezing, sweating your buns off, or any other ends-of-a-spectrum comparison, there are always people who would trade their first-born children to be in your position. I mean, at least you’re not Precious, right?

So take your JD, your body pillow, your license to practice law, your recently delivered Chinese food, your snuggie, and your remote and enjoy where you are right now (on the couch). Once you enter this rabbit hole that is the working world, you will rarely have that luxury. And don’t spoil the most recent episode of “Modern Family!” I haven’t seen it yet.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

All .gifs provided by T.Kyle from RealityTVgifs, and the ridiculousness of America’s Second Family, the Kardashians-Jenners-Disicks-Wests-Odoms-Humphries.

Featured image courtesy of [Toby Oxborrow via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post We’re All in the Same Boat appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year!

I need to be honest with you guys.  A lot has changed in my life since the clock struck 12 on January 1: I won the lottery, got married, started working at my dream job, and got to babysit Blue Ivy.  It’s been an awesome year already!

Okay, so none of that is true (yet), but I have decided to be positive and upbeat this year. That doesn’t mean I won’t be snarky or sarcastic; just that every time I write or think something negative, I’ll try and counter it with something positive.

Courtesy of _Dilexa via Flickr.

The Bad

So far, what makes 2014 a great year is waking up to the obligatory “Happy new year!”/ “Hapye newx yeark!” texts (Lay off the booze, friends). I have yet to respond to any of these messages because I’m lazy, but I appreciate them!  As far as “Happy New Year!” drunk dials and voicemails? Let’s leave those in the past, OK?

Speaking of things I’d like to leave in the past, have you guys heard of shitlawjobs.com? In the spirit of positivity, we’ll just call it…hilariously realistic. I find this site funny because it aggregates all of the terrible job postings that many people on the job hunt view multiple times a day. It’s shocking, really.

Shocking that some of these salaries are below the poverty line for a family of 4.

Shocking that unemployed law school graduates could make more money being an uberX driver than a lawyer.

Shocking that I made more money as a barista at Starbucks in high school than some of these hourly postings.

I could go on, but you catch my drift. Pretty hurts, and so does being a law school grad who doesn’t work for a top law firm.

The Good

During these first few hours of 2014, I needed something to remove the foul taste that shitlawjobs.com left in my mouth. Luckily, Amazon suggested that I read Beyond L.A. Law: Break the Traditional “Lawyer” Mold.

This book contains more than forty essays written by professionals in various fields who happen to have law degrees. I have not read the entire book, but I did peruse a couple of the essays. Many of the writers went on to legal jobs that they love, which is cool, but not really up my alley. Some of the essayists have awesome non-legal jobs: one is an author and publisher, while others used their entrepreneurial instincts to develop or lead companies. It’s inspiring to see people use the skills law school teaches them and then transform those lessons to fit their lives.

The Takeaway

That, my friends, is what 2014 is going to be all about. Figuring out how to make sense of this degree in some sort of meaningful way.

To the ones who have it all figured out: you are awesome. In 2013 I would have been jealous, but this year I’m just happy for you. To the ones who are going to sprint over to ShitLawJobs.com and apply to every single post because a shit job is better than no job, you are better than me. I mean, I will likely apply to some of these jobs too but…ugh. I guess I was right, beggars can’t be choosers.

2014 is the year where we’ll begin to be choosey though, I know it.

Deuces, 2013! And take “twerking” and “turning up” with you. Thaaaaanks.

P.S. This is my first post using a swear word and I feel like a rebel. Watch out 2014!

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of [George via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s 2014 and Everything Changed! appeared first on Law Street.

We’re So Much More than Pointless Fixtures*

[Prelude: I wrote this first paragraph back in August and haven’t had anywhere to place it, until now]. I recently attended the Made in America Festival in Philadelphia, a 2-day celebration of music curated by the rapper Jay-Z, with artists spanning several genres of music performing on three different stages. The experience was unforgettable, especially because I was introduced to many artists who, through their live performances, made me an instant fan. The highlight, though, was the end of Day one when Beyoncé headlined. The performance was phenomenal, from beginning to end, which was to be expected. Roughly three weeks before the festival, I met someone who had attended the D.C. stop of the Mrs. Carter Show World Tour. I asked her how the concert was, and she described it as “truly phenomenal, [because you get] to see a talented woman at the top of her game doing what she was put on this earth to do.”

Since I entered law school, and even more so since I’ve left, I have been trying to figure out what it is I’m supposed to do with my life. More importantly, trying to figure out how to be the best at something like Beyoncé.

Are you happy with yourself? 

First things first: Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter released her fifth album, Beyoncé, last week.  The album came out with no official single, no promotion, no announcement, and no advanced warning. The entire roll out was surprising and amazing. (If you’re interested, the album itself is also really good. Buy it.)

Anyway, the release of the album, and Beyoncé’s “Strategy” for 2013 has a lot of lessons.

The most important thing that I’ve learned in the last six days? Let your work speak for itself. Since before the Super Bowl, I’ve been wondering when she was going to release a new song and reassert her musical dominance. In various interviews she alluded to the fact that she was working on her art on her time, and that those of us who didn’t get it would need to wait.

And wait we did, but it wasn’t easy. I can’t speak for all of her fans, but I grew frustrated. Tired. Annoyed. I eventually got over her and settled on music from artists I neither liked nor really enjoyed.

Does this sound…familiar?

But Nothing I Know Could Slow Us Down

It should, because my exasperation with the wait for this album directly correlates with the struggle that is life after law school graduation. Stick with me, and I promise it will make sense. And if not, at least I found a way to sneak Beyonce on to Law Street.  

The Anticipation

• February 2013: Beyoncé performs at the Super Bowl. Kills it.
• May 2013: We graduate from law school.  We kill it.

Preparation

• April 2013: After two months of intense rehearsals and preparation, Beyoncé embarks on the Mrs. Carter Show World Tour.
• July 2013: After two months of intense studying and preparation, we take the bar exam.

Waiting

• September 2013: The world tour goes on a short hiatus, which has many thinking that a new single is coming!
• October-November 2013: Thousands of recent graduates await the results of the oppressively heinous bar exam. The results come out around Halloween; many students are happy, many are pissed.

Rejoice

• December 13, 2013, 12:00am EST: The link to buy BEYONCÉ on iTunes pops up out of nowhere. Christmas miracle much?
• December 2013-January 2014: Recent law school graduates are beginning to see the light.  Jobs are coming, our real careers are beginning, and 2014 is right around the corner.

“I Woke Up Like This” 

Here’s the thing. I will let anyone know that 2013 has been a difficult year. I’ve done my best to be upbeat, and I’ve optimistically claimed 2014 as “the greatest year of my life thus far” (I’m speaking it into existence).

Beezy taught me

Beyonce’s lessons teach me that I don’t need to tell everyone about 2014. Instead, I need to let it be what it will be: an overall good year. All it takes is a lot of hard work, determination, positivity, productivity, and avoiding the downer moments that seemed to permeate these last twelve months. I can do it! We can do it! 2014 is THE year everyone, I feel it.

And thanks to Beyoncé, we’ve got a BANGIN soundtrack to what will be an awesome year.

Bow down. All hail King Bey. She loves you like XO.

*Can you name all of the BEYONCÉ lyrical references?

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of [idrewuk via Flickr]

[All .gifs courtesy of MTV Buzzworthy and RealityTVgifs]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop Making a Big Deal Out of the Little Things appeared first on Law Street.

Six months out of law school, I’m finding myself starting over personally, professionally, and even socially.  Some, but not all, of my friends totally understand where I’m coming from with regard to this sentiment.  One of these friends is Drake (naturally, because we’re both half-Jewish, Canadian former child stars turned world-famous rappers).  You didn’t know?

You guys! I double majored!

When I started work after college, I was really at the bottom of the bottom.  I accepted my status because I only had a bachelor’s degree.  Not just any kind of Bachelor’s Degree- A bachelor of Arts.  The B.A. in 2013 is like…a three legged puppy.  It’s cute and it has endless possibilities, but its path takes a little bit longer. A lot of people can be successful with them, but most of us have to spend two to four additional (miserable) years in graduate programs so that our salaries can catch up to our lifestyles.  And by most of us, I mean liberal arts majors.

“What are these lifestyles,” you ask? Oh, you know, just trying to live in a nice apartment with MAYBE one roommate, while still being able to afford things like food, clothing, entertainment, and repayments to a horrible woman named Sallie Mae.  (If you haven’t met her yet, trust me when I say she’s garbage).

I’m super anti-guns, and this is NOT a literal interpretation of how I feel about educational debt. It’s close though.

I’ve got a J.D. and I’m working! #Winning!

Trying to rediscover having nights and weekends to myself is tricky.  Knowing that there are no more winter, spring, and summer breaks is depressing. Contemplating grown-up stuff like 401Ks, a savings account, and navigating the treacherous terrain that is a Thursday night happy hour is stressful. We’re at the bottom, and trying to get to wherever the heck “here” is located. Or at least I’m not “here,” despite being a law school graduate for half a year.  Doesn’t that count for something?  Oh.  No?  Still at the bottom.

And it’s the same at work!  Let’s say you’ve gotten a new job.  Even if the job isn’t a perfect fit for you, it’s nice to be productive, learn through professional experiences, and become a cog that helps your organization continue to be a well-oiled machine.

However, there is a lot of bureaucracy in certain jobs, and a lot of steps that are necessary solely because that’s how it’s been done in the past.  Sometimes these steps aren’t helpful, and are relics of a different time.  In other words, they suck.

Law School Prepared Me for this…right?

In 2013, I’m not sure if I need sexual harassment training to let me know that it’s inappropriate to call a female co-worker “baby” or “honey,” and I definitely don’t need to be reminded that I shouldn’t offer said female co-worker a massage.  I’m not Don Draper. Also, the Friends episode where Chandler’s boss kept slapping him on the butt taught me all I need to know about where my hands can and cannot go.

Conversely, there isn’t training with regard to other types of workplace discrimination. The Senate recently passed an anti-bias gay-rights bill.  This bill seeks to combat the lack of explicit protections with regard to sexual orientation in the workplace. Areas like this are where employers should be putting their training muster, methinks.  BUT WHO AM I?

I can’t suggest that! I’m the new guy.  I sit quietly and listen to all of the banter that definitely would NOT pass the “safe space” test of my small, liberal arts college. Alas, I ride the wave until I move up the totem pole.  You know…”here.”

And when being at the bottom gets to be too much, just say to yourself, “just hold on, we’re going home.”

See? Just like Drake.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [ken Sutherland via Flickr]

[.gifs provided by @tkylemac and MTV Buzzworthy, duh.]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Started from the Bottom, Now We’re…Where? appeared first on Law Street.

I was going to attempt to be more upbeat about the law this week, but I’m not there yet. Sorry in advance.

Anyway, one of my favorite people on the planet has decided to move across the country. I’m devastated. Inconsolable. Lonely. Sad. Jealous. Miserable.  [Insert other dramatic adjective.] The reason for my friend’s cross-country trip is that she is chasing her dreams. She took the brave steps of leaving her job, breaking her lease, selling her belongings, and pursuing an uncertain goal. She’s so brave, but I could literally never.

That’s the problem: my friend is following her gut, and I haven’t listened to mine in years. If I am going to be completely honest here, I’ve not been completely satisfied with the decisions that I’ve made in my life these past three or four years. It’s nobody’s fault buy my own, so I’m hoping that Law Street readers will use my story as a cautionary tale.

The gist of this story is to not be afraid to follow your instincts in life. I know that I always went with my gut when I was younger — specifically in high school and college. I think that as I grew older, and became an “adult” in my mind, I stopped trusting myself. Instead of doing what I felt was right for my own life, I jumped on a path that seemed to make the most sense.

I graduated college in 2008 and started my job two days later. I had no time to transition from the unrealistically fantastic experience of college to the very adult and very un-fun world of paying rent and bills. I freaked out about that change, and I have yet to stop freaking out. I decided then that I had to start doing adult things: working certain jobs and ultimately applying to graduate school. In making those adults decisions, though, I have been unfulfilled in my life. Here’s hoping you don’t find yourself in a similar position.

I’ve mentioned before the fact that I knew law school wasn’t for me. What I haven’t mentioned is that after my 1L summer, I called my parents and floated the idea by them of dropping out of law school. Being the amazing parents that they are, they said that I should think about it longer, mainly because they wouldn’t want me to have the legacy of a quitter (Side note: the old “we’re not angry at you, just disappointed” move STILL works. How do parents do that?!). I thought about it for a while longer, and with less than a week between 1L summer and the beginning of 2L year/OCI, I frantically called one of my law school friends. The conversation went something like this:

Friend: “Hey, are you back in town yet?”

Peter: “No, I’m still in New York.  I don’t know if I’m coming back. I don’t know if it’s worth being so unhappy.”

F: “Stop it — you have to come back. The hardest part is over, it can only get better.”*

P: “Yeah, but I don’t know if I want to be a lawyer. I don’t know if I want this life.”

F: “You’re being stupid, nobody wants this life! See you next week at school.”

P:  “You’re a terribly unsupportive friend and I will regret this immensely. Namaste.”**

And with that, I decided to come back to law school. I stayed and eventually graduated.  In a heartless, soulless way it all worked out, and is working out so far.

There are still so many things I want to do though, and I sometimes get a feeling that I should just “go for it,” and “take the next step.” Unlike my friend, though, I can’t bring myself to make decisions without a safety net beneath me. One of these days, though, it’s happening.

As the crapfest that is 2013 comes to an end (Thank You, Jesus!), I’ve decided that 2014 is the year of exploration, re-invention, and following my gut more.***  Who’s with me?!

*LIES

**This was at the beginning of my yogidom.

***Maybe

All .gifs provided by T. Kyle MacMahon from Reality TV .gifs.

Featured image courtesy of [Flickr]

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Duncan Hull via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gut Check appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy few weeks here at Law Street Media as we launched our crime rankings last week and are continuing our efforts to provide content that is both useful and interesting. I now have the opportunity to casually peruse the section like any other reader, and I’ve been checking it out a lot recently.

Law Street’s Crime in America presents statistics gathered from around the country, including the safest places to live, using data gathered by the FBI.

Reading up on all of this crime has forced me to think about its prevalence, the unnecessary danger of certain areas, and what it says about our society. In recent years, there has been much coverage of the huge disparity in prosperity between segments of the population, with the Occupy Wall Street movement providing a notorious example. When I say “forced me to think about,” I mean I’m reflecting on the overabundance of first world problems I have, and how little they matter in a world full of very real conflicts.

I could complain for hours about how tough it is to be six months out of law school, but I have it easy compared to many: I have a job(s) and live in a major city with tons of personal and professional opportunities. There are many people who are still searching for work, and under much more dire circumstances.

In addition, reading Crime in America serves as a reminder that there are people who are under such hardship that they view crime as the only way out of their current situations.  Every time I complained to someone about law school, I often got “there are thousands of people who would kill to be able to go to law school” in response. After an exaggerated eye roll, I would steadfastly refuse to believe this statement was fact. Then I read Crime in America, which begs the question: “Why else are people committing violent crimes?” If you read about America’s ten most dangerous cities, then you’ll see that people are facing severe unemployment and increasing poverty. There is a strong correlation between financial uncertainty and criminal activity.

When I say severe unemployment, I’m not talking about being unable to find a job in a struggling legal economy.  These people can’t get jobs in any economy, for a variety of reasons.  All of the possible reasons lead them to believe that all hope is lost, and hopelessness can lead to criminal levels of desperation.

Many people think being a lawyer is the key to some degree of success, and to an extent they are correct. That success isn’t necessarily in the juris doctorate degree, but in the education that the degree represents. You learn unparalleled skills of analysis, critical thinking, writing, interpretation, oral advocacy, and time management.  You spend three years having your brain broken down and reassembled like some modern-day Frankenstein. It’s a daunting experience, but you emerge ready to face the world with conversational legalese and a leather briefcase.

There are literally thousands of people who cannot even imagine what it’s like to earn a bachelor’s degree, let alone a J.D.  There are people who, in America in 2013, do not even have the option of finishing high school.  These people are neither lazy nor stupid.  Instead, they haven’t been given the tools necessary for educational advancement. I would go so far as to guess that they have never been presented with the idea of academic success as a realistic option. It’s hard to want more from life if you have never experienced what “more” could be.

Law Street’s Crime in America puts problems into perspective, and beyond that it’s just interesting. So go read it! I’ll still complain about law school, but, you know…less.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Department of Homeland Security) via Wikipedia]

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Crime Blog Really Makes You Think appeared first on Law Street.

I have made known how I feel about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.  The cliff notes version is that I think he is a joke.  My colleague Annaliese wrote a pretty funny sendup of him as well.  He has been discussed ad nauseum in the media as of late, mainly for being a mess of a politician and human being.

A few hundred miles away, a different city has been talking about a different politician. Rep. Radel is a freshman congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives and represents Florida’s 19th Congressional District.  In October, he was arrested for purchasing three-and-a-half grams of cocaine from an undercover police officer. This activity, of course, is frowned upon.

Rep. Trey Radel, courtesy of U.S. Government (Office of Congressman Trey Radel) via Flickr.

Ok, I have to be honest.  I did not bat an eye when I read about Radel and his nose candy purchase.  Person in a position of power decides that, in their free time, they want to play Tony Montana; also, today ends in “Y.”  Next controversy?

I got to thinking why I was so incensed about Mayor Ford, and so indifferent regarding Rep. Radel.  Here are my findings:

Their positions

Trey Radel is in his first term as a U.S. Representative. He was sworn in ten months ago, and is at the bottom of the Congressional totem pole.  In addition, there are literally 434 other people who do  the exact same job as Rep. Radel. There is enough of a buffer that a coke binge would not stop the wheels of legislation.  However Radel’s arrest has drawn the ire of many because he recently voted to drug test recipients of public monies like food stamps and welfare (the gall!). His reasoning: if you receive government money as a public benefit, you cannot do drugs. If you receive government money as a result of a job that you are doing, drugs are okay.

Rob Ford, on the other hand, is the executive of Toronto. You know, Toronto, the largest city in Canada.  Imagine the uproar if the mayor of a city like New York said that he was really drunk when he smoked crack?  Bloomberg would never. New York would also have de Blasio’s head.  It would not fly in any major American city: not Los Angeles, not Boston, not Washington, D.C.—oh wait.  Nevermind. Additionally, a mayorship inherently has more immediate power than a member of Congress could have from their job, and the duties of a mayor’s job has a more direct effect on constituents.

Their Images

Trey Radel is a 37-year old Floridian and former news anchor. The guys is good looking. Unfortunately, that helps.  Look, this is not the first time looks have been advantageous to a politician.  He is a favorite of the tea party, hip enough to tweet, and has a young family. Finally, cocaine has a different social connotation than crack. This dates back to the Reagan Administration and the war on drugs.  Drugs are still drugs, of course, but cocaine is more widely accepted as recreational or social.

Rob Ford, on the other hand, looks like a cartoon character.  He has been a public figure long enough to have many televised gaffes that have since been turned into .gifs many times over.  Additionally, crack is embarrassing. When Whitney Houston was accused of crack cocaine use, she explicitly stated that she made too much money to ever smoke crack cocaine.  The Chapelle Show’s Tyrone Biggums character was a hilariously accurate rendering of how most people imagine users of crack cocaine. To imagine the mayor of Toronto smoking crack, then, is particularly jarring.

Rob Ford, courtesy of Shaun Merritt via Flickr.

Their Reactions

Almost a month after his arrest, Radel’s office released statements that seemed to follow the tried and true “politician in trouble” response.  He acknowledged that he had a problem and wanted to take a leave of absence from the House of Representatives.  He mentioned that he’d let himself, his family, and his constituents down. His actions immediately after the arrest made it seem like he thought that the incident would remain under the radar.  This hypothesis is bolstered by the fact that, according to reports, he did not tell senior Congressional officials until recently. In the days since the widespread dissemination of his arrest details, Radel has vowed to seek treatment for his addictions.

Rob Ford’s reaction was atypical, to say the least.  He took Bill Clinton’s “definition of ‘is’ is” and ran it sixty yards to a touchdown in the game of “most ridiculous political excuses”.  You’ll recall that the Mayor said that he never lied, but instead was asked the incorrect question, which subsequently elicited an improper response.  Had the obviously inept reporter simply asked if he’d ever smoked crack, well then the answer would have been a resounding yes.  Duh.  Why? Because it’s the truth.  THE TRUTH.  Not habitually, and not voluntarily- he was just blackout drunk.  This nonsensical response is what one would expect from a crackhead.  With Ford, the jokes right themselves.

The Aftermath

What it comes down to is the potential for redemption. In America, we love a good comeback.  This is Radel’s first public slip up, and if he is smart it will be the last.  In addition, he is not the first member of Congress to be in this position. He can make a successful political comeback, and if he plays his cards right could even run for higher office.  Oh America, you truly are the land of dreams!

Ford, on the other hand, is in uncharted territory.  His behavior since the admission of smoking crack has gotten worse, believe it or not.  I mean, the man tried to tackle someone during a vote of no confidence of the Toronto legislature. He has taken the ultimate step towards irreverence and signed on for a reality television show. There is really nowhere for him to go but down- let’s just hope he puts the pipe down.

[Washington Post] [Post] [CNN]

—

Featured image courtesy of [F l a n k e r via Wikipedia]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tale of Two Politicians appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we’ll be donating a lot of time to the bad guys in the next few days (foreshadowing!).  Today I am going to buck that trend, and extol the virtues of the modern day superheroes: prosecutors.

I’m embarrassed to say that I’m one of the kids who used to watch Law & Order and Perry Mason and think “one day I want to be a lawyer.”  They did all of the quintessential lawyer-like stuff, or so I thought.  I then went to law school and learned that most lawyers never get to do the awesome stuff that I saw on TV.

Cut to summer 2011, and I’m in New York at the first day of my internship with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.  I’ve mentioned this before, but I took the job on a whim.  I had no idea what being a prosecutor entailed, but the AUSAs I worked for gave me a baptism by fire.  This baptism was among the best experiences of my three years in law school.

I worked with two of the smartest people that I have ever had the pleasure of meeting.  One AUSA graduated from law school and worked at a top law firm for four years.  He then decided he wanted to become a prosecutor, so took the (often necessary) first step of clerking for a federal judge.  Immediately after starting the clerkship, he began the arduous task of applying to be a U.S. Attorney.  The timing worked out perfectly, and by the time his clerkship ended he was sworn in as an AUSA.  The second AUSA that I assisted had the highest GPA on record at her law school, clerked for a 4^th Circuit Judge and then Justice Scalia (SCALIA!!!!).  The pressure was definitely high; I knew that if I could impress them, then maybe the whole “legal career” was not just wishful thinking.

On my first day, I met AUSAs and was given three memos due by the end of the week.  This task was daunting considering that first year law students have four months to create their first legal memo. The difference with these memos was that they were being used in real trials of real people who faced real loss of their liberty.  That kind of pressure lit a fire under me that a legal writing grade never could, and it was the best type of game time challenge.

The second day, I was the second chair at a hearing in an illegal reentry case in front of a Southern District of New York judge. Big stuff! It was also my first encounter with a heinous example of legal unprofessionalism; a legal aid attorney was in no mood to be cordial or cooperative, and was not going to let a little thing like the law get in the way of representing her (guilty) client.  What did I learn?  The best way to shut opposing counsel down is not by being rude or snarky; it is stopping every argument they make with correct law, strong analysis, and a smile.

I experienced much in those three months working with the USAO-SDNY, and I maintain that it was the coolest job I had while in law school.

It became evident to me that summer why prosecutors are the most likely candidates for judicial appointments.  They gain real experience in the practice of law, in terms of persuasive writing, oral arguments, and jury trials.  They have insane workloads, and still find time to give each case the attention it deserves.

During my second year of law school, Justice Sonia Sotomayor came to my school for a dialogue with the students.  One of the questions presented to her was what she thought of the Supreme Court’s composition of former prosecutors and how that background affects their rulings.

Part of her answer focused on an inherent desire to stop the bad guys, and how that desire colors their interpretation of the law.  With that statement, she solidified what I always knew: prosecutors are wearing capes today, and are a huge cog in the wheel that protects us from criminals.

I work in homeland security now, and we often have to deal directly with prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement to further our goals of public safety.  The scenarios that I have been privy to range from the mundane to the insane, and the federal and local prosecutors are in the thick of the madness.

So as you consider your career trajectory, or why you’re considering law school, think about the lawyers you see on TV and know that it’s a real option for you.  Also, check out our crime blog, with it’s analysis of FBI statistics and crime data.  When you find yourself being terrified by the danger levels of certain cities, just make sure you locate the District Attorney and U.S. Attorney’s offices and send them a fruit basket or something, because they’ve got your back.

Images: [Wikimedia] [Wikimedia] [Wikimedia]

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [megadem via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prosecutors as Modern Superheroes appeared first on Law Street.

Do you guys remember the Occupy Wall Street movement?  Do you remember how annoying they were? I’m glad that’s over!

They made (some) salient points, though. Chief among their complaints was the fact that, according to various financial reports, more than one-third of the nation’s wealth was controlled by one percent of the population. “Impossible!” we all screamed, “America is built on the potential of financial success through hard work!”. The OWS movement came and went, but many of the problems remain unresolved. The one percent remains the one percent, and those of us in the 99 percent maintain hope that we’ll invent the next Instagram, Microsoft, or Kardashian-esque empire to join their ranks. We all aspire to one day work for ourselves, join the upper echelon of American wealth, and vacation with Jay-Z and Beyoncè.

The distribution of wealth and prosperity is not just uneven for individuals- the same rules apply for corporations.  A recent Policymic post has exposed a fact about which I was previously unaware: many of the most popular brands in America are actually owned, in some capacity, by ten companies. These ownerships are not outright; many of the business arrangements arise as part of majority stock ownership, distribution deals, and mergers.  The same article shows that there are six companies responsible for the majority of media output in this country, and that four financial institutions control our banks.

That sh-t cray.

It’s an interesting, and even insane, premise to consider: so few people actually control so much.  In theory, there are twenty-ish CEOs that have the American economy under marionette strings. They’re the business illuminati, if you will. This statement is even scarier when you consider how much corporate money controls politics.  Many of the people that we elect to represent our interests are eventually bought and sold by private interests that do not always directly align with the desires of their constituents.  It’s hard to stick to your political promises and not become a Washington insider when your reelection campaign coffers are empty. Money wins elections, after all. NRA, anyone?

The power struggles in this country are real.  There is no problem with capitalism, and for many the drive for financial and professional success is the fuel they need to continue to work hard. That drive is premised on the possibility of one day being the boss.  It’s tougher to become the boss when there are only twenty open positions.  So much money and power in so little hands is scary.

An Antitrust Primer

Antitrust is an area of law that seeks to guarantee competition between businesses for the benefit of the public.  Antitrust law also endeavors to regulate mergers and acquisitions of businesses so that mega-corporations are not formed to unfairly dominate their respective industries.  The premise of antitrust is basically that competition is a good and necessary component of running a business, and attempts to lessen competition in an unapproved manner are illegal.

There are various reasons why a lack of competition is problematic in modern business.

The first goes back to the old phrase of “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Let’s take a moment to remember the history of our dear nation, shall we?  This country was founded by people who were escaping monarchies and a government where the power was vested in one person; they understood what too much power can potentially do to a country. If we subject those who govern our country to these standards, why would our businesses be treated differently?

They’re not.

When it comes to these businesses, the same premise applies.  If one company controls everything, we all lose. How else would their business practices be regulated?  Concerns from consumer prices to employee wages wouldn’t be countered by an industry standard, because the one company is the industry.

Second, competition spurs economic growth. If Samsung didn’t exist, Apple wouldn’t be a powerhouse.  There wouldn’t be a Magic Johnson without a Larry Bird, a Britney without a Christina, and a Starbucks without a Dunkin’ Donuts. You get where I’m going with this, right? Additionally, this country is still experiencing the effects of an economic downturn, and the last thing on the agenda of any political party is the slowing down of financial recovery.

This is especially true because America has been down the mega-corporation road before, and it didn’t end well.

The Lessons of Bell Atlantic

In 1974, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.  In U.S. v. AT&T, 552. F.Supp.131 (D.D.C. 1983), the government sued AT&T to stop what they believed were monopoly-like business practices. The allegations were that the corporate structure created unnecessary barriers to competition, which is in direct contravention of the Sherman Act. The main goal of the Sherman Act is to establish and protect unobstructed competition between businesses as a national standard. Specifically, the complaint stated that 6conspiracies sought to “restrain trade in the manufacture, distribution, sale, and installation of telephones, telephone apparatus, equipment, materials, and supplies…”. The D.C. Circuit found that, at the time, AT&T was the largest corporation in the world. The resolution of the case created twenty-two smaller “operating” companies, mostly allocated by region.  The forming of these operating companies divests and divides the power from one major body, thus creating competition and reinforcing the tenets of the Sherman Act.

Why It Matters

Obviously this situation is significantly different, but it is sure to raise some red flags.  It’s a slippery slope, no?  With U.S. v. AT&T, there was one company dominating an industry.  The same result would not occur in the current scenario.  Here, there are ten companies controlling hundreds of consumer goods, six companies running the entertainment industry, and four banks commanding our financial institutions.  We are a merger away from a mega company stomping away at the competition. In other words, we’re monopoly-adjacent. These companies need to be closely scrutinized.  It’s the same reason that the proposed merger between US Airways and American Airlines has been scrutinized so closely as of late.  A superpower is not beneficial for the expansion of business, and it’s not in the best interests of the country.

[Policy Mic]  [Case Text] [New York Times] [Deal Book]

—

Featured image courtesy of [FamZoo Staff via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problem of Too Much Power in Too Few Hands appeared first on Law Street.

When Lady Gaga was on “Watch What Happens Live” with Andy Cohen, he asked her what she thought of the twerking phenomenon that was sweeping the country.  (Sidenote: twerking isn’t a new thing, it’s just…a thing. Whatever). Anyway, Gaga said, “I think that people should stop putting the letter ‘T’ in front of the word ‘werk.’”

I agree, but what about putting a “net” in front of “werk”? Does that change the rules?

Hear me out.

Esquires are many.  JDs are more. Jobs are few. Careers are less. Sometimes you’ve got to get in where you fit in, folks.

We all know that applying for jobs is so much more than sending in your overly-impressive, super-stacked resume.  Sorry, but no one cares that you were number three in your class.  In 2013, you need to get out there and let the world know that you’re looking for a job.

What does that entail?

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, U.S. Postal Service, FedEx, UPS, carrier pigeons, messages in bottles, and much prayer to the God of your choosing.

“I’ve tried all of that, Peter, but I’m still sitting around eating left over Halloween candy in my underwear while watching Modern Family reruns! What else can I do?”

To be honest, I think that anyone eating monster-shaped Reese’s peanut butter cups in sweatpants with an active Netflix account is winning the game of life, but what do I know? For those that require a bit more for professional fulfillment, it’s time to go the Miley* route.

You have to use that body!

Tonight I am going to a networking event. Yes, the thought of it emotionally drains me.  Anyway, my Siamese twin RJ and I are going to get gussied up and smile in the faces of people who make a lot more money than us and are much more influential. We’re going to laugh at their jokes, look them in the eyes, and and take great pains to stick to two glasses of wine for the night.

The real werk starts way before the event, though. We’re putting on our best-fitting suits, crispest white shirts, shiniest dress shoes, and our best-smelling perfumes and colognes. I’ll probably run three or four miles to sweat out any toxins, and definitely plan on putting some Crest white strips on my teeth for 30-40 minutes mid-afternoon.

“Are you saying that how I look will impact my networking experience?” No. I’m saying it’ll affect your netWERKing experience. Do you follow?

People want to talk to people who are pretty. If they talk to you and you’ve got personality, they’ll like you. If they like you, they’ll remember you when job information comes their way. If they remember you, you’ll get a job faster. It’s science.

Ok, ok, let’s say you try all of the above and the event is still stiff. Maybe the small talk isn’t covering topics about which you know a lot of information. You then reach into your (figurative) bag of tricks and pull out the pièce de résistance, the “Netwerk” – patent pending. It’s not even hard.  You just pop a Miley*! Bend the knees, pop the hips, and re-state all of the phenomenal experience you gained during your various past clinics, internships, and jobs.

Not only will you likely be hired on the spot, they will surely put you on the fast track to a corner office. Trust me- I haven’t gotten where I am without a lot of netwerking, and I’m finally ready to share my secret. You’re welcome.

*Is Miley still who the kids are referencing? I’m desperately grasping to my quickly escaping youth.

P.S. For serious job search information, check out Alex’s Capitalista blog or our job list.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [John Murden via Flickr]

.gifs courtesy of T. Kyle from RealityTVgifs

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When All Else Fails, You NeTwerk appeared first on Law Street.

This is Rob Ford.  He is the current mayor of Toronto, the largest city in Canada.

Courtesy of West Annex News via Flickr.

He has been in the news for the past few days following an admission on November 5 that he had smoked crack cocaine while in office.

There’s more: the crack smoking is allegedly on tape.

There’s even more: Mayor Ford says that he has no plans to resign from his mayorship.

Mayor Ford doesn’t plan on stepping down because he “loves his job.”  He plans on finishing his current term, and next year he will run for reelection.

Backstory

On May 16, 2013, Gawker published an article which describes in great detail its investigation into the claims of Mayor Ford’s drug use.  Their research includes travel to Toronto, secret meetings in cars, and a cell phone video of Ford with a crack pipe in his mouth.  In fact, Gawker was so invested in securing this video as proof of their claims that they set up an Indiegogo for $200,000, the amount of money that the owners of the video said it would cost for them to sell.

Keep in mind these claims were made six months ago.  At the time, Ford vehemently denied that he had ever smoked crack.

He’s now changing his tune.

In reference to Canadian crackgate, Ford now says that reporters did not ask him the correct questions initially.  His exact words were, “you didn’t ask the correct questions…No, I’m not an addict.  And no, I do not do drugs.  I made mistakes in the past and all I can do is apologize.”

It’s all a technicality, you see.  During an impromptu press conference, he said he does not smoke crack cocaine, just that he has smoked crack cocaine.  Get it?  Semantics.

That’s not all, though.  Ford now says that he did smoke crack cocaine, but that it occurred at a time when he was in a drunken stupor.  He goes further, and implores the various members of the press to provide him with a copy of the video.  Due to the severity of this particular drunken stupor, he has no idea as to what this video contains.   He wants to watch the video with all of Toronto so that everyone can be on the same page.

Unsurprisingly, the Toronto City Council wants Mayor Ford gone sooner rather than later.  There has been a motion made for Ford to take a leave of absence, and other Canadian political figures have also voiced their lack of confidence in the Mayor’s ability to effectively lead the city.

Regardless of how other politicians feel, Ford feels like 1,000 pounds is off his back now that the secret’s out in the open. Phew! The admission of a little recreational crack will surely do wonders for Ford’s reelection campaign (which could probably use some donations right about now).

Why this matters

I don’t know much, if anything, about Canadian politics.  What I do know is that most municipalities prefer to have confidence in the leadership qualities that their Executive branches of government possess.

I also know that I’m a part of a generation that is routinely warned of the dangers of having a picture tagged on Facebook with a beer in my hand, lest that one beer lead someone somewhere to surmise that I’m a raging alcoholic with dangerous propensities and a terrible work ethic.

I know that though I am a recent law school graduate with a job, there are thousands of similar people out there with no job prospects despite high grades, bar passage, and the common sense to not get drunk enough to smoke crack.  So if you’re unemployed, you can always consider a career in politics.

 —

Featured image courtesy of [sari dennise via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Toronto Mayor Rob Ford Admits to Smoking Crack Cocaine While in Office appeared first on Law Street.

The New York Times recently wrote about the declining relevance of law reviews, with the main argument being that the primary sources of legal scholarship should not be left in the hands of students.

In fact, in the article, Adam Liptak included quotes from sources like Chief Justice John Roberts maligning the significance of what was once a prestigious honor among law students.

Law Review Membership for Law Students

For those who are unaware, most, if not all, law schools have at least one scholarly publication that is published semi-annually.  These periodicals include musings on the law from among the best and brightest in the legal field, including professors and practitioners.  The topics of the articles can span many legal topics, from as broad an area as Constitutional law to the most niche practice group in a boutique law firm.  These articles are submitted to student-run law reviews for publication.

This sounds elementary, but membership to your school’s law review is among the greatest honors a law student can receive.  In these economic times of more lawyers and fewer legal jobs, a staff editor position continues to set students apart from their contemporaries.  To obtain membership to these publications, schools have competitions between students during their first year, with varying entry-qualifications.  At some schools, students with a certain first-year GPA are automatically offered admission to the review; other schools only permit entry to those who are in a certain percentile of their class.

In the world of legal education, membership to a journal or review can open doors that may otherwise be closed to the general student body.  There are extra receptions, forums, and meet-and-greets with notable people in the law.  In addition, during on-campus interview season, many of the top firms mandate membership on either a journal or moot court for serious consideration to join their ranks.

Law reviews are so important that many schools have other specialized reviews for students to join.  Harvard Law School has 17 scholarly journals; Georgetown University Law Center has 11; Boston College Law, five; Howard Law, two; and UVA has 10.  These secondary publications are also an important tool in establishing one’s legal career.  Often if a student enters law school with the professional goal of working in intellectual property and patents, they are more likely to write on an IP-specific journal as opposed to the main journal.  That way, the student is guaranteed to broaden his or her knowledge in that field of the law and have more networking opportunities with IP professionals.  This is especially important, because networking leads to jobs, jobs leads to success, and success leads to happiness.

Post-law school impressions of Law Reviews

 Liptak’s article is full of lines that would deter students from seeking membership into the elite world of law review membership.  Sentences like, “student editors are mostly bright and work hard, but they are young, part-time amateurs who know little about the law…” are hardly encouraging.  This is especially insulting when you consider the all-important “real world” aspect of law review work.  Unlike doing well in a classroom full of hypotheticals or made-up legal writing scenarios, staff editors of law reviews are fixing the work of real legal scholars, which is an important part of the learning process.

Ask any law student who has ever had to do a source collect, or check the (often incorrect) citations submitted by legal scholars, and they will tell you that the work is tedious but it always gets done on time.  When dealing with matters of import, these “part-time amateurs” always step up to the plate.  Working on a law review gives students an impetus to work harder, because it is a rare time in law school, aside from internships and clinics, where the people involved are not hypothetical characters in a fact pattern.

Additionally, to every full-time attorney who had something disheartening to say to the students editing their work: you were not always an expert. Perhaps you fail to realize that twenty years ago, you were just another “mostly bright” law student editing an article that “no one relies on.”

Interestingly, Tyler Rosenbaum, the Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Review, made an astute observation in a New York Times letter to the editor: “…it is not the fault of students or of our law reviews that the grown-ups haven’t made [a solution].” This is especially true because law review membership follows lawyers throughout their careers.  Good luck finding law professors who weren’t members while they were in school.  As for the comment about law professors “[dumping] their lesser work onto their school’s students,” that’s a requirement for tenure-seeking professors.  Publication in varied journals over a span of years is necessary for job security.

Perhaps it is because I am newly out of law school that I’m so incensed by this article’s point of view, or perhaps because I was one of those students who spent hours critiquing the work of professionals.  More than that, though, is the hypocrisy of these legal scholars who are essentially biting the hand that fed them throughout their careers that really grinds my gears. And do not even get me started on talking about incompetence and lack of experience — heads up, you cannot get experience if no one gives you work.

[New York Times] [New York Times Op-Ed]

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Tracie Hall via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law Reviews: Losing Steam, But Who’s to Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

Coming off the heels of an economic recession, and in a job climate that is increasingly tenuous, there are various reasons why people apply for jobs that are: (i) seemingly beneath their skill level; (ii) not in line with their prior positions; or (iii) in brand new fields.  These reasons, to be further discussed below, should not become the sole reason to one’s consideration for a position.  Instead, it is an invitation for serious dialogue about careers vs. jobs, long-term vs. short- term goals, and attempting to achieve some semblance of a balanced life.  The frustrations that I, and others similarly situated, experience on a daily basis are indicative of a still-fragile economy, and a dialogue among this generation will serve as a catalyst for solution.

Where to begin? Well, let’s say that there was a 21-year old college senior who wanted to be a politician.  Let’s say that, because of real financial concerns, this 21-year old took a job at a defense law firm as a paralegal.  He didn’t take the job because he wanted to be a corporate lawyer, though.  Instead, the firm paid $15,000 more than a job he was offered as a political aide for a state representative.  Because of financial concerns, the 21-year old chose the job he applied for on a whim instead of the job that he was passionate about.  This dispassion led the now 24-year old to apply to law school, because that was the thing to do.  The 24-year old applies, gets accepted, moves to a different city, and eventually matriculates at a law school with an amazing reputation, both locally and nationally.  The 24-year old realizes on the third day that law school was a terrible decision, but believes that quitting is an inappropriate option.  The law student performs decently well in law school, along the way obtaining some of the most coveted internships that a law student can desire.  The student graduates law school at 27, and accepts the truth that the law will never be the professional area in which he truly thrives.  Indeed, he would be a decent attorney at best.  Never great, never game changing, never truly special.  Recognizing that mediocrity is akin to professional suicide, the 27-year old law graduate attempts to reintegrate himself into the working world, and is attempting to find his way among the plethora of options before him.  Surely, he says, with my pedigree, employers will be knocking down my door!  He applies to jobs in all of the fields in which he has experience: politics, policy, communications, marketing, sales, event planning, grassroots campaigning, and yes, the law.

He waits…

He waits longer…

He waits even longer.

And in the hours, days, weeks, and months that pass since the initial foray into a job hunt, he sees an unnerving number of rejection letters and emails clutter both his physical mailbox and inbox.

“What,” he asks, “am I doing wrong?”

How I feel about the job search.

Nothing.

The employers do not see it like that, though. Here’s what they say:

Mr. Davidson:

Thank you for your application.  After carefully reviewing your resume, we see that you possess skills that are above the call of duty for the aforementioned position.  These skills, while impressive, do not fall in line with our goals in filling this position.  As such, we have decided to go in a different direction.  Your resume and professional history, however, are extremely impressive, and we have no doubt that your valuable skills will best be utilized elsewhere.

OR

Mr. Davidson:

Thank you for applying to the position of ___________.  We thank you for your time in submitting your resume and cover letter to us, but we have unfortunately decided that you will not be chosen for the next round of interviews.  Indeed, among the many factors we considered why someone with your resume is applying for a job like this?  Our position is that we need someone who could potentially grow with our organization, and do not desire a transient employee who will use this position until something more specially tailored presents itself.

Those are two actual examples of correspondence that I have received during my job search.  Telephone calls are even more blunt and dismissive.

Out of sheer frustration, and in an attempt to educate those in a position to hire, I’ve thought of reasons why overqualification is not always the best reason to reject someone.  In fact, sometimes it’s lazy.

(1)  I’m overqualified, but I’m also dispassionate at best, and indifferent at worst, with my present line of work.  I’ve always thought that I could be successful in [your field], but pursued other endeavors for fear of [financial concerns, societal pressure, etc.].  I think that an entry-level position could further the initial experience I have, while also sharpening the dormant skills I gained years ago in a similar position.

(2)  I’m overqualified, but I am also busy with a passion project, or a family, or attempting to reconnect with my long-lost social life.  This position may be less demanding or less-senior than a previous position, but I know that I will value the extra time I have and use it wisely.

(3)  I’m overqualified, but this is a new venture, and I don’t want to be the party taking the reigns.  I don’t want to be the person on whom the bulk of the responsibility falls.  I want to learn, and I want to learn from you, a respected expert in your field.

(4)  I’m overqualified, but I have long-term goals, and improving my skills in this particular area will make me more well-rounded for if and when I choose to pursue those goals.  I.e., if I want to be a politician and am seeking employment in a public relations firm, it’s because I’m interested in learning about relating to the public.  I want to become a pro at drafting a press release, and learning the art of spinning an issue.

(5)  I’m overqualified, but I’m also unhappy in my current job.  The money I’m making is a nice bonus, however it really just serves as icing on an unappealing cake.  In applying to this position, I’m taking a brave step in personal growth by choosing to be happy.

The reality is that this list could continue forever.  The myriad of possibilities all lead to one truth, though: over-qualification should never be a reason to deny an applicant a position.  At the very least, they should be offered the opportunity to interview and further explain their reasoning for applying.  In my mind, the over-qualification excuse is an overly simplistic, and frankly lazy, way of cutting down the size of an applicant pool.

I recognize that I am not all knowing, though, and I am extremely interested in how others feel.  Please leave comments! If you agree with me, great, but I’m also interested in those who disagree.  That, my friends, is called a dialogue, and as long as we’re respectful and professional we can get to the root of the problem.

So comment below!

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Gideon Tsang via Flickr]

All Housewives .gifs provided with permission by T. Kyle MacMahon from Reality TV .gifs, because Bravo makes everything less serious.)

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Overqualification is the New “It’s Not Me, It’s You.” appeared first on Law Street.

Today The New York Times wrote about a Brooklyn Orthodox Jewish rabbi who is accused of kidnapping estranged husbands of women seeking a religious divorce.

Rabbi Mendel Epstein has been charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey with kidnapping the husbands of his clients for money and using violence to get them to divorce their wives.

Background

In the Orthodox Jewish community, a “get” is necessary for a divorce decree to be finalized.  Gets require the husband to permit the wife to divorce him. If a get is not obtained, then a divorce within the eyes of the Orthodox religion is not recognized.

Gets are the sole province of husbands in a marital relationship, and the denial of one to a wife renders the woman unable to move on under the rules of the religion.  There has been much advocacy in recent years focused on protecting the rights of women in their pursuit of freedom from their husbands.  This is especially true when their reasons for wanting to leave the marriage are based on domestic abuse, cruelty, or inhumane treatment.

When husbands refuse to grant their wife a get, rabbis can take action against them within the confines of their religion, including excluding them from activities within their synagogue.

Rabbi Epstein sought resolution in a different way.  He allegedly charged women $10,000 for decrees permitting violence against the husbands and $50,000 to arrange the violence himself.  Rabbi Epstein has been able to issue these decrees because he serves as a judge and lawyer within the religion.

Epstein’s activities were apparently an open secret among the Orthodox communities in New York and New Jersey.  Additionally, he spoke in depth to undercover investigators about his tactics for persuading husbands to allow their wives to obtain a get- namely employing tactics that didn’t leave marks on his victims.

The Case Buildup

According to the Times, Rabbi Epstein was sued in the late 1990s for similar conduct.  The suit was later dismissed.

When this case was being investigated, Epstein allegedly stated that “if the [estranged husband] does not have a mark on him,” police will not conduct a further inquiry into allegations of kidnapping or abuse.

With the widespread publication of this information, there has been an influx of potential victims calling into the FBI hotline.

On October 18, bail was set for four of the ten men accused of kidnapping the husbands, with amounts set between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

Family Law Parallels

Family law students may remember the case of Aflalo v. Aflalo, 685 A.2d 523 (NJ Sup. Ct. 1996).  In this case, a wife wanted to obtain a divorce decree from her husband but he refused to grant her a get.  In that case, the court ruled that they could not force her husband to grant her a get. The legal reasoning of the Alflalo court was that the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution prohibited their involvement in the religious divorce procedure. Further, the court noted that it’s not unfair per se for their decision to not intervene.  Mrs. Alflalo was permitted to obtain a legal divorce from here husband, but the perceived unfairness stems from her own religious beliefs.  The court’s reasoning was that a person, in effect, chooses their religion.  Parties that enter into a marriage within the Orthodox Jewish religion are willingly adhering to the rules and regulations of that religion.

Resolution

It remains to be seen how this case will play out in the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey, but I think it’s fair to say that if Epstein and his accomplices are found guilty of this activity, they will GET what they deserve.

[New York Times] [Failed Messiah] [CNN] [The Jewish Week] [USA Today] [Brooklyn News 12] [NJ.com] [Google Scholar]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Sandor Weisz via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Orthodox Rabbi Accused of Using Violence to Obtain Religious Divorce Decrees appeared first on Law Street.

I joke a lot about the struggles of law school and bar prep.  I’ve done it here, and here, too.  I’ll likely do it in the future as well.  I’m beginning to realize that constantly discussing a problem is an exercise in futility if there is no talk of a solution, though.  With that in mind, let’s talk about my solution for getting through three years of law school.  It’s called working out, and more specifically for me, yoga.

The Beginning

I first discovered yoga about four months before I entered law school, when an ex of mine suggested I try a class.  I resisted for various reasons, the main two excuses being “yoga isn’t a guy sport” and “I want a real workout when I go to the gym.” Finally, after avoiding taking a class for months, I checked it out one day.  That was in April 2010, and I started attending classes semi-regularly after that.

When done correctly, yoga is a great workout and an amazing way to minimize stress in one’s life.  It’s calming and meditative, but it’s also very physically demanding and pushes your mental limits.

I was a casual yoga attendee before law school; I would go to a class a week at my gym, and only if there was nothing else more exciting occurring.  I always noted how much better I felt after a class, but I chalked that up to endorphins that accompany physical activity.

The Law School-Induced Breakthrough

During the all-important second year of law school, I was more stressed out than my first year.  (Side note: contrary to popular belief, law school gets more insane with each passing year.  If it doesn’t, you’re doing something incorrectly.)  Just going to the gym or running for thirty minutes was not having the same mental effect that it once did.  Because I was so busy, I figured the safest bet was to cut something from my schedule, and working out got the boot.  For the majority of that semester, I rarely worked out, which gave me more time to focus on school, internships, OCI, and the million other things with which second year law school students juggle.

Right around finals time, I was getting dressed to go to the library, and my jeans didn’t fit.  I was livid, and I let all of my law school friends know (in typically dramatic fashion, with a few expletives thrown in) that my legal education was not worth getting fat.

I immediately joined a yoga studio that was equidistant between my house and my school. This way I’d have no choice but to work out. The plan was to re-try yoga as a way to ease back into a fitness plan.

The Obsession

That was in November 2011, and the rest is history.

Anybody who knows me now will tell you that I’m obsessed with yoga and working out.  Something about mental and physical exertion while pushing your body to limits that you never before thought possible really calms me down.  In fact, I don’t think I’d have maintained my sanity throughout the remainder of law school without all of those down dogs and warrior positions.

Casually editing my article.

The Evolution of My Obsession into Full-Blown Addiction

This is especially true during bar prep, which I disrespectfully refer to as Guantanamo.  Guantanamo was so terrible that I went to the gym five or six times a week, just because the mood-enhancing endorphins served as a counter-balance to the joy-stealing lectures about secured transactions, trust law, and the thousand other subjects that New York insists on testing.

Even now, in my post-bar exam/pre-results purgatory, I go to the gym to counteract the stress and anxiety that accompanies the five or six “so did you pass the bar yet?” inquiries I receive a day.  In the beginning, I’d say “If I pass you’ll know, and if I don’t we’ll never talk about it again.”  Now I just say “Namaste,” which luckily is just as off-putting to some people.  Either way, I get asked less about the bar now.

All of this is to say, to everyone who is in law school and learning all of the awesome and not-so-awesome minutiae of the legal world, be sure to give yourself a physical outlet.  It may not be yoga, but definitely do something. It’s not good to be stressed out all the time, mainly because stress causes you to frown, which leaves wrinkles, which makes you look old. I suggest kickboxing—believe me, sometimes the law will make you want to punch things.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Images courtesy of [Peter Davidson]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yoga Got Me Through Law School and the Bar Exam appeared first on Law Street.

Matt Cordle created a stir on the internet when he posted a video to Youtube entitled “I Killed a man.”  In the video, Cordle admits to driving extremely intoxicated down the wrong side of the highway, hitting a car and eventually killing Vincent Canzani. Cordle also said that he would plead guilty to whatever crime he is charged with in relation to Mr. Canzani’s death, and that his reason for making the video was essentially to put a real face to the serious implications of drinking and driving.  He ended the video by imploring viewers to not make the same mistake he did.

On September 11, 2013, Cordle plead not guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide. This was considered legal maneuvering by his counsel, and Cordle eventually plead guilty.  On October 23, Cordle was sentenced to six-and-a-half years in prison and the permanent suspension of his driver’s license, pursuant to Ohio law.

There is a lot to discuss here.  The first is the criminal law aspect of Cordle’s Youtube confession.  Cordle makes a point to say that he will “take full responsibility for everything he’s done to Vincent and his family…by releasing this video, [he knows] exactly what it means, and hand the prosecution everything they need to put me away for a very long time.” This is especially true in light of the fact that in criminal trials, it is the both the judge’s and defense counsel’s legal and ethical duty to make sure that the defendant knows the consequences of a guilty plea.  To that extent, it is clear that Cordle received legal advice in making the Youtube confession, as well as his actions in court.

Second, how much did the court of public opinion factor into the outcome of this case?  As of September 12, 2011, the video has been viewed over two million times.  There is a public investment in the judicial response to Cordle’s case.  The outrage that will result would be massive, especially since judgeships are elected positions in Ohio. Though this internet confession was not the sole reason that Cordle received his conviction, this unprecedented move surely played a larger role.

During the sentencing, various parties spoke on behalf of and against Cordle.  Those who supported him throughout the trial argued that he has made such an impact with his video, and acknowledgement of the severity of his actions, that the maximum sentence of eight-and-a-half years was unnecessary.  They argued that by putting a face to drunk driving, he has effectively “scared straight” those that would consider putting themselves in a similar position. Among those who took this position were Mr. Canzani’s widow and Cordle’s attorney.

Conversely, there were arguments in court that the maximum sentence was deserved because of the heinous nature of the crime, and because a viral video does not negate the loss of life that occurred at Cordle’s hands. This position was most effectively elucidated by Mr. Canzani’s daughter, Angela, who said “my father got a death sentence and did nothing wrong.  After eight and half years, Matthew Cordle will still have his whole life ahead of him, my father is never coming back.”

This case is so interesting, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.  Was Cordle’s sentence fair? Should the video have resulted in an even shorter sentence?  Should he have received the maximum?

[Daily News] [CNN] 

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “I Killed a Man” Driver Sentenced to Six and a Half Years appeared first on Law Street.

Disclaimer: I am a very vocal advocate of stricter regulation of gun laws.  That does not mean that I do not respect the 2nd amendment (“right to bear arms”).  I absolutely do, and I respect the original point of view of the framers of the Constitution.  So does Justice Scalia; it’s called being an originalist.  Now can we acknowledge that times have changed since the drafting of the Constitution?  That public safety should override, or at least be more strongly considered, in federal, state, and local legislative actions?  That sometimes there is a limit to how far a law can reach?

The backstory is simple: According to the Des Moines register, Iowa now grants permits to obtain guns to legally blind people.

Their reasoning is simple: it is legal and constitutional, pursuant to both the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 endeavors to regulate, and has for years regulated, who is able to obtain a license to carry a gun and the rules surrounding the ability to obtain a gun license.  The law provides that there are certain classes of people who are ineligible to be licensed gun owner.  These people include, but are not limited to, the following: criminals, a non-citizen of the United states; potentially dangerous people against whom restraining orders have been issued, and abusers of illegal substances or alcohol.  Not listed in this group of people banned from owning a gun license?  Blind people.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 seeks to protect those who for any reason may face unlawful discrimination due to a disability.  These disabilities include physical and mental disabilities like blindness, deafness, those in wheelchairs, and those with developmental issues.

Both of these federal laws serve important and necessary purposes for the protection of public safety and civil liberties.  The difficulty with this particular legal and legislative issue is the cross-section of the laws and their purposes.

In allowing the legally and completely blind to obtain gun licenses, Iowa is taking an important stand in the advancement of the ADA and the protection of the civil liberties of its citizens.

That being said, our nation has, in the last few years had significant problems with gun control, gun access, and disabilities (specifically mental health).  We’ve been down this slippery slope before.  Is anything catastrophically dangerous likely to happen if a legally blind person is carrying a gun they are legally licensed to have?  Probably not.  But what if a blind woman is in her home with her two children one night and an intruder enters?  What if the woman grabs her firearm and shoots in the direction of the perceived intruder, but instead fatally wounds her child?  Why are we not considering the repercussions of this law?  There needs to be more debate on this, and more possible scenarios considered, before the full enactment of the law.

[Des Moines Register, CNN, Fox News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [M Glasgow via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iowa Permits Blind People to Obtain Gun Permits. Seriously. appeared first on Law Street.

On October 22, 2013, the New York Times ran an article describing the various problems that have accompanied the roll out of a central tenet of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), www.HealthCare.gov.   The gist of the article focuses on the technical issues that the public has encountered when trying to shop the online marketplace for health insurance.  Essentially, the volume of interested potential buyers has diminished the ease with which the site was to be navigated.

Because of the apparently gargantuan inconvenience of a website loading slowly, there is a large demand for apologies from all levels of the government, starting with President Obama and trickling down to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Indeed, after our government’s united front in reopening the government (after a shutdown that was their fault) and subsequent dangerous proximity to reaching the debt ceiling, it was shocking that Speaker of the House John Boehner called for the Obama Administration to answer questions related to the flaws in the website’s launch.

That was sarcasm, friends.

Because a glitch in a website visited by thousands of people a day is totally a reason to delay or repeal the availability of health insurance.  That’s also sarcasm.

These problems are called growing pains! Are they annoying? Absolutely.  But they happen- there is no need to make a mountain out of a molehill.  Especially when you consider what Americans stand to gain from the Affordable Care Act.  With health insurance, more people can visit their primary care physicians for routine physicals and for small aches and pains.  It’s often small aches that turn into large medical problems.  Large medical problems lead to large medical bills.  Similarly, there are catastrophic events.  Nobody plans to get hit by a bus on their way to work.  Nobody plans to be in a car accident.  These catastrophes happen, and health insurance provides a buffer of security the necessity of which is not always readily apparent.  When you’re in the thick of medical debt, though, you wind up kicking yourself for not taking advantage of small monthly insurance payments.  The utility of medical insurance, and the costs of that insurance, can be exponentially less than the cost of catastrophic care.  Emergency room visits by the uninsured, for example, have frequently been cited as one of the primary reasons for high costs of healthcare.

This all seems unnecessary considering the fact that we’re in the world’s super power, and that there are concrete examples of how a government-mandated expansion of healthcare can thrive (take France or Sweden, for example).

Do you guys know what this is called?  It’s called a stall tactic.  It’s also called a diversion.  This “controversial” roll out of the website is meant to distract you from what’s really going on.

“Well, what’s really going on?”

Oh nothing, just thousands of people being presented with an opportunity to have a primary care physician for the first time.

Just decisions about your health being ripped from the sole decision of a private insurance company that is more concerned with their bottom line than a rash on your arm.

At the end of the day, the website problems are frustrating, but they are not insurmountable.  The failure of a website to run as efficiently as we would prefer is certainly not a reason to engage in protracted political debates, especially after being so closely linked to a sixteen day protracted political debate that left hundreds of thousands of people out of work.  Health care, for now is debatable (it shouldn’t be, but it is).  Two things that are not debatable are the necessity for protections against the unpredictable occurrences in life and the inconvenience of a website that will eventually help thousands of people.

[New York Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everyone, Let’s Lay Off the Obamacare Online Marketplace? appeared first on Law Street.

Beggars still can’t be choosers.

My first job after 1L year was for the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I accepted the position knowing little to nothing about the role of the U.S. Attorney or the city of New York. All I knew was that, after two months of applying, I had the all-important first year internship. I had decided before law school that Washington, D.C. was where I would practice law after graduation, and this job in New York threw a wrench in my plans. The legal economy then, in the spring of 2011, was as tough as it is now. In light of that fact, I took the best job that I could get and accepted the USAO’s offer.

At the beginning of the summer, I moved all of my suits and summer clothes to a small studio in midtown east on 45th & Lexington. I arrived on a Sunday, and my first day with the USAO was the following week. In my eight days of downtime, I decided to explore New York City.

At first I didn’t really feel a need to take myself on a walking tour of a city that I already knew very well.  My mother is from Brooklyn, and I’ve been visiting my family members there and in the Bronx forever.  Additionally, friends from college and high school had all settled there.  I’d spent many drunken weekends causing a scene on side streets of the Lower East Side and Greenwich Village, but always as the annoying weekend visitor.  Now, as a resident, I felt I owed myself a different city experience.

And experience the city I did.  I walked across town via 45^th Street from Lexington to 8^th Avenue, and then I walked down 8^th Avenue to 12^th street before making my way back East.  In between, I probably said “I’ve got to check this place out,” over one hundred times.  That’s the thing about New York: it’s a city begging to be explored.  I spent three months exploring its sights and sounds, and I was hooked.  I knew that after law school I wanted to move there.

I took steps to further that goal.  During my 2L summer, I worked there again, this time in a different government office but one that furthered the legal goals I endeavored to achieve. Finally, in the first semester of my 3L year, through channels of networking and “people who know people who know people,” I was offered a full-time position with a small company.

“This,” I thought, “is it.”  I had my dream job in my dream city, which I knew I’d earned after the three-year circus of indignities that is law school.  I don’t need to get in to the specifics here, but it didn’t work out.  The job fell through, and I immediately redoubled my efforts to get back to New York.  I applied for countless jobs (chronicled here…it’s depressing) and nothing.

In the mean time, I took up side jobs of both the legal and non-legal varieties.  I was fortunate enough to find this blog, and I began to volunteer with a legal organization.  I was also a host at a restaurant and did temp work.  I went on a ton of interviews, but the “perfect New York City” job consistently evaded me.

And then the unthinkable happened.  A close friend referred me to an open position in D.C., and I was offered an interview.  I prepared for the interview, and it went really well.

And then they offered me the job.

The job I was offered is not a job that one declines.  After discussing my options with my parents and a few friends, I decided to accept the position.  My acceptance effectively derails my New York City dreams for the foreseeable future.  Initially I didn’t want to end my pursuit of a big city job, but I considered both the economy and the markets in which I looked for work, and both are difficult.  It would have been much more imprudent to turn down a position and assume that another one is going to come.

And so, in October 2013, I made the same decision that I made in February 2011.  Accept the best job that comes to you, even if it’s in a city that you weren’t planning to live, and make it work.

To everybody out there with a J.D. and a dream: the job is coming!  As Ted Kennedy said, “the dream will never die.”  He was obviously talking about searching for work in a down legal economy, right?

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Taellious via Flickr]

As always, all .gifs provided by T. Kyle MacMahon of RealityTVGifs!

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beggars (Still) Can’t be Choosers in Today’s Job Market appeared first on Law Street.

I graduated from law school almost five months ago, in May 2013.  From late May to late July, I spent two months being depressed and suicidal, otherwise known as bar prep.

A shockingly accurate representation of summer 2013.

Post-bar, I spent a month catching up on terrible reality television, reading stupid magazines, and engaging in other activities that required little-to-no brain functionality.

Surprisingly, what I didn’t do was make a particular rush to catch up with the friends that I had effectively neglected for two and a half months.  I was in a bar exam-induced PTSD, and I couldn’t fathom being around others who had not just gone through the same level of intellectual violation and warfare.  Everyone was uncomfortably happy and upbeat about the future, and I was not in the same boat.  I knew that I had three and a half months of waiting for bar results, and that thought remained in the back of my mind every day.

As I slowly but surely reemerge into polite society from my self-imposed exile, I realize that there are so many misconceptions about life during and after law school. These funnily-flawed thoughts come from four broadly classified categories of friends.

Group 1

These are your non-legal friends who are personally and professionally winning.  People often forget that you paused your life for three years to learn the law.  Unfortunately, the world didn’t pause with you.  In fact, it seems like their lives fast-forwarded a few chapters: promotions, engagements, marriages, and home purchases are what all of my friends talk about now.

Do you know what I talk about now? (1) Funemployment—not so fun.  (2) Educational debt—tons of it.  (3) Feeling old- what’s a Miley Cyrus?  (4) Reality tv- I live vicariously through Bravolebrities.  I literally don’t know how to relate to conversations about the depreciating value of diamonds and how the engagement ring business is a genius scam.  Diamonds and engagement are so far away for me, but for everyone else it’s happening!

Sorry, smart friend  who didn’t go to law school — I can’t relate to your perfect problems.

While we spent the last 1,100-ish days creating pneumonic devices for Constitutional tests (Lemon Test= SEX= Secular purpose; no primary Effect of advancing or hindering religion; no eXcessive entanglement.  You’re welcome), your friends were at work.  They were becoming more practically skilled in their professional fields, whereas you were receiving theoretical training.  You were getting A’s and B’s, but they were getting promotions.  The reality is that even if you become a first-year associate at a top law firm, you’re at the bottom of the totem pole.  Your friends, however, are not.  Thanks, law school.

We get it, you’re happy.

See? Professionally and personally winning.

Let us catch up, guys! We were on the bench for 3-4 years and now we’re trying to get back in the game!

Group 2

These are your friends who can’t grasp what current law students and law graduates know: law school ages you! You know those side-by-side comparisons of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama from their first Presidential portrait to their second?  And how everyone remarks that they have many more wrinkles and much more gray hair.  Such is life for a person learning the law.

Everyone expects you to rage at the end of the semester, and that desire to get you blackout drunk grows exponentially when you’re done taking the bar.  Little do your friends know that, while you talk a big game about drinking your face off, all you really want to do is sleep.  Perhaps you’d like to read a non-legal book? I hear they’re interesting.  Maybe jump on that exercise fad? There’s so much to try, but it’s difficult to get off of the couch because you feel so old.

My response every time someone wants to catch up over drinks.

Law students and lawyers read a lot.  Our eyesight is terrible.  Our backs hurt from carrying so many books (unless you had a wheelie backpack, in which case…just go).  We have a severe Vitamin D deficiency, because fluorescent library lights just aren’t as healthy for humans as sunlight.

Let us get some rest and attempt to feel like real humans again.  Once we’ve accomplished that (seemingly insurmountable) goal, we will gladly have a beer with you…or twenty.

Group 3

These friends are your biggest cheerleaders, but also have no idea about the reality you face.

I love comparing the pep talks I receive with those received by other law school friends.

Friend A: “My mom said I should apply to the biggest firm in the country because they’d be lucky to have me!”  Facts:Not necessarily true.  In fact, most likely not true, especially if you’re weren’t a summer associate at the firm.

Friend B: “My parents have a friend of a friend of a friend of a cousin who met a judge with whom they think I should apply.  The judge is on the D.C. Circuit.  I wasn’t on law review.”  Facts: Not happening.  Unless you saved the life of that judge’s first born child oryou are that judge’s child, it’s not happening.

Lisa Vanderpump and I appreciate the sentiment, but you’re wrong.

Friend C: “I’m pretty sure I failed the bar, but all of my friends say I definitely passed because I studied so hard.”  Fact: Actually, it’s a total toss up and we don’t find out until November, because bar examiners are sick and twisted people.  Also, the bar is a test that requires minimum competency, which is tough to gauge!

Friend D: “You’ll find a job, you’re smart!” Fact: Yes, but so is every other unemployed kid with a JD, and every unemployed actual attorney, so…. next.

The moral to this group of friends? We get it; you’re doing your job and being supportive and nice.  You, however, are incorrect about most of the smoke you’re blowing.

Enough is enough! Stop being such a good friend, right Taylor?

We secretly really appreciate it, though.

Group 4

This group is the best: the friends who work for big law and aren’t yet used to their new lifestyles.

The most inadvertent comments from them remind you of the stark differences of your post-graduation paths.

Like, how can you not sympathize with someone who hasn’t cooked in weeks because the firm insists on feeding them breakfast, lunch, and dinner?

Seriously, guys, sometimes you want to walk home after a long day in the office, but if you stay past a certain hour, you have to take a car service.  Ugh.

Would you believe there are people out there suffering the indignity of business class? I’d quit.

Their comments are equally representative of their acceptance of the monumental change in their lives and the shock that all of this is happening to them.  They get a lot of perks, but they work all the time.  Some of them really enjoy what they do (FREAKS), and some of them feel the exact opposite way.

They always remind you how lucky you are that you are still looking for work, or that your job lets you leave at 6:00, 7:00, 8:00, 9:00, or 10:00.  The grass is always greener, right?

You’re of course genuinely thrilled for them, too. It’s always nice to have a bunch of friends at a bunch of firms, especially if you’re considering running for public office one day (wink wink nudge nudge Citizens United, anyone?).

Seriously, donate to my Senate campaign in 2026!

Are there any other groups I’m missing? Let me know in the comments!

—

Featured image courtesy of [Jesse Vaughan via Flickr]

(all .gifs provided by the genius T. Kyle MacMahon from Reality TV .gifs.)

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Simple Classification of Friends in a Post-J.D. World appeared first on Law Street.

On September 30, I logged into Facebook and saw the most peculiar post.  A friend of mine works for the federal government, and his status read: “I really hope I can go to work tomorrow.”

On a normal Monday, that would be the weirdest sentiment.  I’m used to seeing complaints about how the week is off to a slow start, or how the weekend is too long. Those statements are expected (and usually true).  This post, though, was different.

While there was an air of lightheartedness in the post, there also was a sense of concern about the uncertain future.

As I type this, the U.S. government is in the midst of a shutdown.  Approximately 800,000 people find themselves out of work due to a government-mandated furlough (leave without pay).

Here’s a quick and dirty recap of the past week: the marketplace for providers to offer their services to the hundreds of thousands of people now eligible for healthcare under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) opened on October 1, 2013.  The Democrat-controlled Senate approved a version of the appropriations bill that would fund the government.  On Friday, September 27, the Republican-led House responded with their own version of the bill, which also funded the government if key provisions of the Affordable Care Act were cut.  In a move to signal that he is playing hardball, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the Senate home for the weekend, meaning the House’s version wouldn’t even be considered until Monday.  Monday was the last available day for compromise to be reached without a government shutdown.  This meant that the House would not receive the Senate’s revisions until later on Monday, and would have little time to vote before the shutdown took effect at 11:59 p.m.

Speaker of the House John Boehner accused the Senate and the Obama Administration of putting partisan politics before the needs of the public.  The Democrats responded with the exact same accusation.  A stalemate occurred, and that is where we presently find ourselves.

Instead of attempting to compromise, various members of both parties are speaking to the press to posture themselves in a favorable light to their constituents.  These members of Congress are failing to realize that while they offer sound bites to various media outlets, their positive spin will never outweigh forcing almost one million Americans out of work.

It’s going to be hard to be reelected when sentiments like this one from the Washington Post: “We’re very hardworking people- we do a lot for people across the country.  And I feel that we’re obviously being used as a political pawn, but we’re also not being valued for what we do.”

It sucks when Congress can’t get their stuff together for the hardworking people they’re supposed to serve.

What does the shutting down of the government entail?  It’s essentially commandeering the Titanic, post-iceberg.  You’re in control of a sinking ship, but you’re coasting along until it sinks.  To slow down the sinking process, various items are being thrown overboard.  How does the government cruise?  By cutting the hours, and thus the payment, of your friends, neighbors, parents, siblings, and possibly you.

“Isn’t a shutdown the equivalent of a snow day?”

Yes it is- at least for the first few days (I know much about unemployment, and the first two or three days are actually kind of sweet: catching up on TV, sleeping in, and going to the gym in the middle of the day are great).  As time wears on, reality rears its ugly head via the accumulation of bills.

In fact, this shutdown really puts things in perspective.  For the past few months, I’ve been complaining about being an unemployed JD.  My complaints have been numerous, considering I really have nothing to worry about: I have no bills, a free roof over my head (thanks mom and dad!), and the luxury of looking for work full-time.

Furloughed government employees are adults with families, tuition, mortgages, car payments, and future plans, all of which are funded by their salaries.  Salaries that, for now, they no longer receive. Most importantly, they want to work!

So, let’s just hope that Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid stop this stick-measuring test and make the best decision for the 800,000 people without income right now.

—

Featured image courtesy of [NoHoDamon via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When the Government Won’t Let Its Employees Work appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, September 16, 2013, I woke up to news that a mass shooting was taking place at the Washington Navy Yard, ten miles from my house.  It had been nine months since the last devastating mass shooting had taken place, in December 2012, and I came to the realization that I literally was unable to delve into the minutiae of this attack.  My heart couldn’t take the stress.  And for the first time in a long time, I stayed away from the news.  For three days, I neither watched nor read the papers, and knew nothing of the Navy Yard Shooting (because these events always get whittled down to two or three word titles: Columbine. Virginia Tech.  Tucson.  Aurora.  Sandy Hook.  Navy Yard. ________.  (This last example is for the inevitable next shooting that I end up writing about, since our members of Congress respect the NRA’s dollars more than they do our lives).

Today, Thursday September 19, 2013, I felt ignorant for not knowing the facts around this tragedy.  Here is an event that happened in the city where I was born and raised, in an area where many of my friends live, and I did not know the facts.  So today, I sat down and I read them.  Now I’m angry.

Today I learned that the shooter visited two Veterans Affairs Hospitals in two cities seeking help for mental distress.  Each time he sought assistance, he was told that there was not a problem that warranted official concern. For the record, this is absolutely not a condemnation of the mental health professionals who treated the shooter.  They likely followed the protocols to the letter, and were under constraints due to the restrictions Veterans Affairs’ Hospitals typically encounter.  I also learned that the shooter was given a clearance and entered the building using a properly-issued badge.  I learned that the same vetting company cleared both this shooter and the Fort Good gunman.  I learned that he entered the building with a backpack, went into a restroom, came out with a shotgun, and began firing.

I have a suggestion: a uniform procedure for entering government buildings.  There are some government buildings where a the presentation of a badge is the sole security measure.  In others, though, employees and visitors alike go through the same screening precautions.  Indeed, in the summer of 2011, I interned for the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan.  To get into the building, employees had to pass through the metal detector, even with our badges.  Similarly, when entering the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, my bag passed through a security machine every time I entered the building, whether for the first time that day or for lunch. Finally, when I interned for the White House, the security was as tight as one could imagine, no matter what type of badge you possessed.

Was it annoying? Sure.  Realistically, though, it always took less than five minutes.  I don’t know about you, but five minutes is worth my time.  Five minutes is certainly worth my life. If enhanced security is necessary for some government buildings, shouldn’t it be necessary for all?

I also watched a video from the Washington Post where a former Marine told viewers how to react in the event of a mass shooting.  At first I thought, “I will never need to watch this,” but then I realized that it’s probably more beneficial than not.  As a society, we have seen various former safe havens lose their place in our hearts, and come to the realization that we’re not safe anywhere: not in high school, not in college, not in super markets, not in parking lots, not in movie theaters, not in kindergarten, and now not at work.

So I took seven minutes out of my day (less than the time it would take to properly secure all government buildings) and I watched this video.  I felt like I owed it to myself, because every few months we have our sense of safety eroded.  I wanted to learn how to protect myself in the event of danger.

Our workplaces are dangerous.  Our schools are dangerous.  Supermarkets are dangerous and movie theaters are dangers.  What’s left?

Don’t worry, though: the minute news broke that there was a shooter at the Navy Yard, security was increased at the Capitol, and all House and Senate buildings were locked down.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Tim Evanson via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Now It’s the Navy Yard – What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Day two of the government shutdown has come and gone, and the streets of Washington, D.C. remain much emptier than they were two days ago.  Today though, hope of a compromise shone through the darkness of out-of-office messages and locked government buildings.

President Obama hosted an afternoon meeting of Congressional leaders that lasted for an hour and a half.  Parties present at the meeting reported that it was unproductive, but the fact that the meeting occurred is slow progress.  In the beginning of this debacle, the President had stated that the resolution was squarely on the shoulders of Representatives and Senators.

Obama’s intrusion into the stalemated talks for funding of the government evidences the urgency with which this shutdown is being approached.

The first day of the shutdown was met with a collective shock at the actions of our politicians, as it perfectly illustrated the pettiness often associated with legislative politics.

The public relations and communications teams for politicians are likely working around the clock to restore the battered images that are resulting from the shutdown.  In addition to this meeting, 108 lawmakers have pledged to donate their salaries to charities in solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of federal employees not receiving pay.

 Congress will continue working over time until a compromise is met, especially because the minute this conflict is resolved, they will need to decide whether to raise the debt ceiling.  The deadline for that decision is October 17, and is the determining factor in whether the government will be able to pay its bills.

 The debt issue is as big a deal as the government shutdown, and could have a much more devastating effect on the steady economic progress the country is experiencing.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Marina Noordegraaf via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shutdown 2013: The End of Day Two Sees Slow Progress appeared first on Law Street.