Anonymous User wrote:just noticed my 2 words in my small caps'd journal name in my CL were not capitalized so when put into the oscar CL editor it looks glaringly wrong.
i had like 10 people look at my god damn CL and no one noticed it. it seemed absolutely flawless, so i didn't bother checking it once put into the editor, and there's no way of doing small caps in it (as far as i can tell).
fucking unbelievable amount of time--mine and my recommenders'--completely wasted. i only sent out one paper app who a recommender was friends with, so that is the only thing keeping me from losing any and all hope at this point.
If it's any consolation, my paper apps' writing sample (and I sent about forty paper apps) was littered with mistakes. Unsurprisingly, I didn't get any calls from paper judges, though I did get this Tuesday screener last week from a 3d Cir. judge before he had the chance to really look at my sample. It was a bench memo that a clerk edited. I more or less restored all the stuff he cut, so it ended up being basically all my work. But there were, unavoidably, some edits that stayed in because I didn't really have a copy with tracked changes, just my original draft, which I didn't want to use because it was misformatted, and his edit. Now, keep in mind that the clerk in question was an absolutely brilliant guy who wrote a stellar opinion in probably one of the four biggest con law cases of the year. (When I say stellar, that means it's not the Hull-Dubina clusterfuck.) And also a terrific editor, though he wasn't quite on the level of another clerk in that chambers who helped coauthor the Bluebook. Well, in spite of being so brilliant and such a good editor, he made, among others, the following mistakes:
1. Wrote 28. U.S.C. 2254 instead of 28 U.S.C. 2254
2. Wrote that "the court's statement that "erroneous evidentiary rulings unlikely to affect the outcome of the case did not deprive defendant of effective assistance of appellate counsel" suggests that the court adjudicated _____'s ineffectiveness claim on the merits." Now, as you can see, that sentence is nonsensical - an evidentiary ruling can't deprive anyone of effective assistance of counsel, no matter how unlikely or likely to affect the outcome of a trial. What the court, in fact, wrote was that "FAILURE TO APPEAL erroneous evidentiary rulings... did not deprive defendant of effective assistance," which makes sense and which does, in fact, suggest that the court adjudicated the ineffectiveness claim. The way he quotes them, it seems like the author of the opinion just let his dog sit on the keyboard and no one was really adjudicating anything. I, of course, had the quote right the first time, but he inexplicably edited it into mush and I didn't notice until I re-edited it for OSCAR apps.