Proposal: We stop accepting the flame that 0Ls will do PI Forum

[romothesavior]

I should make one of these for public defenders.

Can we talk about who they really defend?

[09042014]

I should make one of these for public defenders.

Can we talk about who they really defend?

That would be 180.

[Dany]

I should make one of these for public defenders.

Can we talk about who they really defend?

That would be 180.

+1, please make a parody of that black/white/red poster.

[romothesavior]

--ImageRemoved--

[AreJay711]

I had a public defender claim that there is a lot of money in being a in that line of work, at least in Southern / Eastern Shore MD. You start out at 55K (which is a lot of money there) and peak out in the 80K's through experience and can get into 6 figures if you run a county or division. The average 1 br rent is probably under $500 and the average house under $100k. He had me convinced .. but I guess that is what he is good at.

[romothesavior]

--ImageRemoved--

I just want to make a bunch of memes and send them to that email address.

[Dany]

lol awesome

[kingofspain]

I should make one of these for public defenders.

Can we talk about who they really defend?

True-ish, but "Can we talk about the role firms play in perpetuating and deepening the structural inequalities in our society?" doesn't fit so well on posters.

Also, if you don't see the moral difference between public defenders and corporate defenders, you probably aren't the campaign's target demographic.

[bilbobaggins]

I should make one of these for public defenders.

Can we talk about who they really defend?

True-ish, but "Can we talk about the role firms play in perpetuating and deepening the structural inequalities in our society?" doesn't fit so well on posters.

Also, if you don't see the moral difference between public defenders and corporate defenders, you probably aren't the campaign's target demographic.

TLS - the only place people in big law feel persecuted.

[Flanker1067]

Lulz at having a choice between PI and firms. I know some people will, but they should STFU. I'll take whatever I can "network" (I hate that term and networking, but it's how I got my 1L and 2L summer jerb) my way into.

[kapital98]

I should make one of these for public defenders.

Can we talk about who they really defend?

True-ish, but "Can we talk about the role firms play in perpetuating and deepening the structural inequalities in our society?" doesn't fit so well on posters.

Also, if you don't see the moral difference between public defenders and corporate defenders, you probably aren't the campaign's target demographic.

TLS - the only place people in big law feel persecuted.

The Horror

[kapital98]

I should make one of these for public defenders.

Can we talk about who they really defend?

They defend alleged criminals of all sorts. Every poor person from the kid who stole a twinky to the middle-aged child molester. I see what you are trying to do and it's completely hypocritical. No matter how serious the offense the indigent deserve quality representation. This is very different from firms who are paying top dollar so they can effectively get away with toxic torts, corporate takeovers, etc.

I had a public defender claim that there is a lot of money in being a in that line of work, at least in Southern / Eastern Shore MD. You start out at 55K (which is a lot of money there) and peak out in the 80K's through experience and can get into 6 figures if you run a county or division. The average 1 br rent is probably under $500 and the average house under $100k. He had me convinced .. but I guess that is what he is good at.

I interned at a PD's office in upstate NY and they paid the same wages and the area had the same cost of living. Count in LRAP and it's not a bad deal. This varies on what geographic location you want to work in.

[TIKITEMBO]

They defend alleged criminals of all sorts. Every poor person from the kid who stole a twinky to the middle-aged child molester. I see what you are trying to do and it's completely hypocritical. No matter how serious the offense the indigent deserve quality representation. This is very different from firms who are paying top dollar so they can effectively get away with toxic torts, corporate takeovers, etc.

I do like that our country approaches legal representation in a somewhat similar way to how other counties approach healthcare.

Thank god it's not up for vote today. It'd be another exercise in watching people vote away what's good for them because of "lazy and entitled" people except the talking points would include "murderers, rapists, and drug dealers" instead. It'd never stand a chance.

[AreJay711]

They defend alleged criminals of all sorts. Every poor person from the kid who stole a twinky to the middle-aged child molester. I see what you are trying to do and it's completely hypocritical. No matter how serious the offense the indigent deserve quality representation. This is very different from firms who are paying top dollar so they can effectively get away with toxic torts, corporate takeovers, etc.

I do like that our country approaches legal representation in a somewhat similar way to how other counties approach healthcare.

Thank god it's not up for vote today. It'd be another exercise in watching people vote away what's good for them because of "lazy and entitled" people except the talking points would include "murderers, rapists, and drug dealers" instead. It'd never stand a chance.

It was never really up for debate though.

Even if it was, (1) there is something inherently individualist in the adversarial system and (2) there are apparently fewer qualms about giving subpar legal services to people who can't pay compared to subpar medical services to people who can't pay.

[TIKITEMBO]

They defend alleged criminals of all sorts. Every poor person from the kid who stole a twinky to the middle-aged child molester. I see what you are trying to do and it's completely hypocritical. No matter how serious the offense the indigent deserve quality representation. This is very different from firms who are paying top dollar so they can effectively get away with toxic torts, corporate takeovers, etc.

I do like that our country approaches legal representation in a somewhat similar way to how other counties approach healthcare.

Thank god it's not up for vote today. It'd be another exercise in watching people vote away what's good for them because of "lazy and entitled" people except the talking points would include "murderers, rapists, and drug dealers" instead. It'd never stand a chance.

It was never really up for debate though.

Even if it was, (1) there is something inherently individualist in the adversarial system and (2) there are apparently fewer qualms about giving subpar legal services to people who can't pay compared to subpar medical services to people who can't pay.

Oh I know. Gideon vs. Wainwright and all that. I'm just saying I'm glad it's not up for debate. I'd like to agree with you, but watching the anti-healthcare propaganda take root and people not wanting to "pay for lazy people" I can easily see the talking point of not wanting to "pay for murderers,rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, and pimps" resonating with people. Just talk about how poor people shouldn't break the law and expect other people to pay for it. Show some of the most extreme cases and people of people "taking advantage of the system" and there you go. Not sure it'd be a majority against it, but yeah just glad it's not up for a vote.

[ben4847]

I should make one of these for public defenders.

Can we talk about who they really defend?

They defend alleged criminals of all sorts. Every poor person from the kid who stole a twinky to the middle-aged child molester. I see what you are trying to do and it's completely hypocritical. No matter how serious the offense the indigent deserve quality representation. This is very different from firms who are paying top dollar so they can effectively get away with toxic torts, corporate takeovers, etc.

Well, sure it is different to defend a jerk who is poor, than to defend a jerk who is rich and paying you well for it. But that is not the relevant distinction, since the charge here is not that you are being paid for your work, but that you are defending bad people. As the campaign says, "Can we talk about who they really defend".

Really, their ad campaign is kind of childish. The one on ATL is saying that K&E is bad because they defended BP against the workers claims after the explosion on the Deepwater horizon. Well, BP can hardly decide to pay every lawsuit in full just because it is filed. Almost every lawsuit has some merit, and almost every one asks for more damages than they deserve. So we have an adversarial system of litigation. You cannot fault BP for defending their claims, and you cannot fault a law firm for taking the case. Anymore than you can fault a PD for defending a rapist.

And I still don't get why they are trying to flood a flooded field even more. There are way more than enough PI lawyers. Going into PI doesn't help a single person in the world, since there are 20 more willing to take your place who are equally qualified. If you want to help the world, you should make some money so you can fund those 20. Or you should go be a doctor in some little village in ethiopia.

HLS kids who want to do PI, aren't in it to help anyone else--they're doing it to help themselves, since they think it will make them feel good. Well, I'm doing what makes me feel good too. So we're exactly the same.

[romothesavior]

Oh Christ people, you take things so seriously. I was mostly screwing around. Of course I think PDs play an important role and I'm not really trying to equate them to biglaw attorneys.

But if your distinction between biglaw firms and PDs is that one is for profit and the other is doing a public service, then let's talk about for-profit criminal defense attorneys. I don't think Jose Baez or Johnnie Cochran were working out of the goodness of their hearts, and they probably damn well knew that their clients were guilty. As do the for-profit criminal defense attorneys in most cases all across the country.

Also, if you think all biglaw firms do is help clients do shady and illegal stuff, then you need to get a clue. Biglaw firms and corporations aren't benevolent beings, but they aren't just a bunch of evil crooks either. The stuff these Harvard people are pushing is insulting to their classmates and intellectually bankrupt. It is great they want to encourage people to do PI, but this is not the way to do it.

[Dany]

Oh Christ people, you take things so seriously.

This is why I hate law students.

[kapital98]

Oh Christ people, you take things so seriously. I was mostly screwing around. Of course I think PDs play an important role and I'm not really trying to equate them to biglaw attorneys.

But if your distinction between biglaw firms and PDs is that one is for profit and the other is doing a public service, then let's talk about for-profit criminal defense attorneys. I don't think Jose Baez or Johnnie Cochran were working out of the goodness of their hearts, and they probably damn well knew that their clients were guilty. As do the for-profit criminal defense attorneys in most cases all across the country.

Also, if you think all biglaw firms do is help clients do shady and illegal stuff, then you need to get a clue. Biglaw firms and corporations aren't benevolent beings, but they aren't just a bunch of evil crooks either. The stuff these Harvard people are pushing is insulting to their classmates and intellectually bankrupt. It is great they want to encourage people to do PI, but this is not the way to do it.

Way to make a straw man argument. I should start of all my talking points by making an assumption you didn't make, too.

First, PD's aren't given their cases and they don't take them with the intent to make money or fame (the most glamorous poor people will get free pro bono work from famous criminal defense attorneys.)

Second, I don't think people in biglaw are part of some huge conspiracy. They are doing their job. It just happens that they hide all moral guilt behind a wall of bad-faith and money. To use a phrase from Orwell, they are "dogs."

-----

"Firmly Decline" may not solve the problem but at least it raises the issue. Before someone enters a firm job they should know who they will really be defending. I've never heard of a PD or DA's office being disingenuous in their job description.

The same can't be said of firms who are actively trying to recruit the best talent in a competitive market. Having firms come out and say they defend BP against millions of injured victims isn't going to win many people over. Not enough to remain competitive compared to other firms anyways...

[TaipeiMort]

I just want to say that for most of the 1Ls wanting to do PI, Biglaw is the best way to do so. A lot of PI is wading through not great stuff so you get the occasional juicy nugget of utility-inducing/save-the-world opportunity ("Juicy PI"). The Biglaw right firms (eg. those who allow you to put some pro bono toward billables) perform an inter-mediation function which filters the bad/pointless stuff out. The market demand for skilled lawyers drives PI institutions with "Juicy PI" to outsource much of it to competent and well-funded (and cheap) suppliers of legal services.

So, the right big law firm gives you $$$ and "Juicy PI" opportunities. The average PI job gives you $, lots of hard thankless work, and some "Juicy PI" opportunities. The needs of 90% of PI 0Ls are fulfilled by the right biglaw firm, and that is why they disappear from the PI market come OCI.

There are some PI jobs that need uber-skilled, dedicated attorneys, and involve pretty awesome work. These opportunities ("international law," capital crimes defense, constitutional rights litigation, ideological issue-based appellate, ) are rare and the people who are going to get them don't tell people they are gunning for them-- just like you don't see people in law school telling you they will be an entertainment attorney or an A3 clerk. Therefore, no one who says they will be doing "PI" will actually willingly be doing it and are actually flaming.

[sd5289]

just like you don't see people in law school telling you they will be an entertainment attorney or an A3 clerk.

You don't? I ran into at least five 0L's at the last ASD who told me they were going into "entertainment law" (though to prove your point, there were dozens saying they were going into "public interest law," but didn't offer specifics).

[sd5289]

Some good info for people wondering about working PI after law school (pay special attention to #2 and #3):

http://www.equaljusticeworks.org/news/b ... -realities

Now the realities, both good and bad, about public interest work:

1) Public interest jobs are typically lower paying than private firms

Those who are in public interest will never earn as much as their peers at large law firms, but the trade off is increased job satisfaction as well as personal satisfaction of working toward the common good.

2) The threat of budget cuts is ever present in public interest

The potential of further cuts to Legal Services Corporation (LSC), the largest single provider of civil legal aid funding, in 2012 may impact employment opportunities. Organizations may hire laterally or may look for volunteers instead of entry level attorneys on staff. However, lack of funding and volatility are of equal concerns for large law firms in the private sector, who saw an unprecedented number of attorney layoffs and deferrals the past few years.

3) It is harder to obtain public interest jobs than large law firm jobs

Unlike large law firms, public interest employers generally do not have a set hiring schedule where they bring on new associate classes each year, but rather hire when they have openings. They often do not have staff solely dedicated to recruitment, as law firms do, and often the person responsible for hiring also has a full caseload as well as other responsibilities. Therefore, securing a job in public interest takes a concerted effort. Public interest students need to be patient, as they may not obtain a job until much later than those working in the private sector.

4) You will get much more client interaction and experience early on in your career

Public interest attorneys assume much more responsibility at the beginning of their careers. Large law firm associates may have to wait until they are mid-level or senior associates before they have much direct client contact, courtroom or pretrial experience – in public interest, you often gain these experiences immediately.

5) You do not need to be on law review to land a public interest job

Grades are not as critical as they are for large law firms who may have unwritten GPA cutoffs. Public interest employers would rather see a demonstrated commitment to public interest and specific causes through volunteer and community experiences, clinics, public interest related coursework and advocacy.

The benefits to pursuing a career in public interest are numerous and fulfilling. Not only will you gain tremendous hands on experience that can lead to professional success, but also make a visible and lasting difference in the communities you serve, which is the ultimate reward.

Past that, it really boils down to what your style is. Are you in this to make the monies (at which point you'd be nuts to attend anything outside of the top schools in the country) or are you in this for the reasons listed above? I'll never make as much as a friend of mine heading for Ropes & Gray after he graduates in May, but I'll make sure to enjoy my nights and weekends enough for both of us. He'll get his pick of whatever apt/house he wants, and I'll have to settle for a 2BR in Astoria. Etc. I'm pretty sure we're both okay with these prospective outcomes.

[kingofspain]

Why all the disdain for 0Ls who say they want to do PI? So someone says they want to do PI. Even if they don't know specifics, it's generally an honorable intention that we should encourage, no? At this point you can react to these 0Ls in a variety of ways, but reactions will generally fall into two categories: 1) "Good luck fighting the temptation/convenience of biglaw!" and 2) "You're an idiot. Accept NOW that you'll sell out your ideals."

What's the point of reaction #2? Is it, like, you can't argue that biglaw is morally better than PI, so instead you argue that PI-focused 0Ls are just as self-interested as your average biglaw gunner? Does it make you feel powerful to be on the side of the machine that systematically undermines good intentions?

Srsly y'all, thanks for the reality check, but at some point telling PI-focused 0Ls that statistics=fate becomes part of the problem. You're NOT helping; in fact, you're part of the system that funnels people into firms. If you really want to help, feel free to tell 0Ls the reality of the situation --- then encourage them to find out actual career options, suggest ways to craft a realistic path to a PI career, etc. HOWEVER, if you find yourself taking pleasure in crushing idealistic 0Ls, just stfu and stay out of PI threads. Maybe you don't believe in the mission of PI work; maybe you feel guilty about abandoning your own PI ambitions and alleviate your self-loathing by undermining 0L PI ambitions. Either way, you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

ETA: Obviously not responding or referring to above post by sd5289. (That is obvious, right?) Just general observations.

[flem]

Why all the disdain for 0Ls who say they want to do PI? So someone says they want to do PI. Even if they don't know specifics, it's generally an honorable intention that we should encourage, no? At this point you can react to these 0Ls in a variety of ways, but reactions will generally fall into two categories: 1) "Good luck fighting the temptation/convenience of biglaw!" and 2) "You're an idiot. Accept NOW that you'll sell out your ideals."

What's the point of reaction #2? Is it, like, you can't argue that biglaw is morally better than PI, so instead you argue that PI-focused 0Ls are just as self-interested as your average biglaw gunner? Does it make you feel powerful to be on the side of the machine that systematically undermines good intentions?

Srsly y'all, thanks for the reality check, but at some point telling PI-focused 0Ls that statistics=fate becomes part of the problem. You're NOT helping; in fact, you're part of the system that funnels people into firms. If you really want to help, feel free to tell 0Ls the reality of the situation --- then encourage them to find out actual career options, suggest ways to craft a realistic path to a PI career, etc. HOWEVER, if you find yourself taking pleasure in crushing idealistic 0Ls, just stfu and stay out of PI threads. Maybe you don't believe in the mission of PI work; maybe you feel guilty about abandoning your own PI ambitions and alleviate your self-loathing by undermining 0L PI ambitions. Either way, you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

QF not actually reading the above article

[dixiecupdrinking]

If you want to work directly with an indigent client population (family law, legal services, public defense) then going to BigLaw is going to be immensely unsatisfying. There's a lot of handwringing here about "good PI" over "bad PI" but the fact is a lot of students went into law in order to help certain people in a direct fashion, and for those students, working in a shitty office, making little money, and having a good deal of career uncertainty are worth it. If you aren't especially dedicated, though, when the firms come calling it feels like (and probably is) a rational decision to jump on board.