Caveat emptor

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.

User avatar
notedgarfigaro
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby notedgarfigaro » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:39 pm

ridiculous.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273269
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:21 pm

This makes me a thousand times less proud of my District Court clerkship next year.

User avatar
spleenworship
Posts: 4421
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby spleenworship » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:37 pm

notedgarfigaro wrote:ridiculous.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273269
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:47 pm

In fairness to Martinez, this is the second "pro bono" clerkship that he's offered. My understanding -- through a secondhand but reliable source -- is that the first pro bono clerk was not a desperate unemployed grad looking for anything. Instead, s/he was an associate at a big eastern firm (I don't remember if it was NYC or Chicago) looking to try to break in to the Denver market, which is notoriously insular.

In fairness to those criticizing Martinez, I think that he's pretty clearly misunderstanding the thought process behind the initial pro bono clerkships when they were offered in 2010 and 2011 -- my understanding is that they were intended to give deferred biglaw associates something to do before their jobs started.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby prezidentv8 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:49 pm

Oddly enough, I recall meeting someone who had a similar arrangement with a DCt judge about a year and a half ago. That, plus the "Special" AUSA thing, pretty much are the defining signs of the times for me.

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby 20160810 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:54 pm


User avatar
cinephile
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby cinephile » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:58 pm

What's worse is discussing things like this with other classmates and realizing that none of them are horrified, not even a little. I talk to friends and they say things like "It's a great opportunity and if you're committed to the profession, why wouldn't you take it?" Like they actually try to make a person feel bad for expecting pay for your own labor. What has this world come to when students don't even want to be paid?

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby prezidentv8 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:07 pm



Fact.

cinephile wrote:Like they actually try to make a person feel bad for expecting pay for your own labor.


QF annoying characteristics of law school culture.

User avatar
okinawa
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby okinawa » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:10 pm

This wouldn't be a bad deal for a deferred biglaw associate (actually, it'd be awesome). But is that even happening anymore?

Wry
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby Wry » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:21 pm

considering legal hiring for big firms has slowed to a trickle, i think firms are really conscious about the negative publicity connected to deferring or no-offering.

for example, the office i am headed to has 200+ attys, and the summer class for that location will be 5-7 people. i'm not even sure that will cover attrition.

and as to the main point in this thread? utter bullshit.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby rad lulz » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:25 pm

SPS conduct

luthersloan
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby luthersloan » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:08 am

While it is certainly a sign of bad times, I fail to see how there is any exploitation here. If a person is in a bad enough way that they are willing to work for free, I fail to see how there is something wrong with that. I agree it is a totally fucked up situation, but in the world in which we live, it seems wildly counter productive to bash the judge. But counter productive behavior is par for the course from Professor Campos.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby vanwinkle » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:21 am

luthersloan wrote:While it is certainly a sign of bad times, I fail to see how there is any exploitation here. If a person is in a bad enough way that they are willing to work for free, I fail to see how there is something wrong with that. I agree it is a totally fucked up situation, but in the world in which we live, it seems wildly counter productive to bash the judge. But counter productive behavior is par for the course from Professor Campos.

This is absurdly dumb logic. If someone is working for free because they're "in a bad enough way", then taking advantage of that is exploitation.

There's a disconnect between you acknowledging that a person might take these "jobs" out of desperation or a bad situation, and you claiming that there is no exploitation by using such people for free to avoid paying someone, when exploitation is, by definition, taking advantage of another's situation for one's own ends.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby 09042014 » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:21 am

I take this and quit the minute I got a jerb.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby 09042014 » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:22 am

Also, LOL at all the clerkship gunners who are MAD AS FUCK these guys are devaluing their clerkship.

User avatar
Lincoln
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby Lincoln » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:25 am

Yeah, this isn't new. I know someone who did this two years ago. Difference is this is through OSCAR, I guess.

luthersloan
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby luthersloan » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:36 am

vanwinkle wrote:
luthersloan wrote:While it is certainly a sign of bad times, I fail to see how there is any exploitation here. If a person is in a bad enough way that they are willing to work for free, I fail to see how there is something wrong with that. I agree it is a totally fucked up situation, but in the world in which we live, it seems wildly counter productive to bash the judge. But counter productive behavior is par for the course from Professor Campos.

This is absurdly dumb logic. If someone is working for free because they're "in a bad enough way", then taking advantage of that is exploitation.

There's a disconnect between you acknowledging that a person might take these "jobs" out of desperation or a bad situation, and you claiming that there is no exploitation by using such people for free to avoid paying someone, when exploitation is, by definition, taking advantage of another's situation for one's own ends.


Well, people almost always work, for money or otherwise, because they are in a situation that is less than ideal. Billionaires tend not to work. By your definition all trade, or employment, is by definition exploitation. A person exchanges something to another person that the other person needs, for the first persons benefit.

So at what point exactly does it become exploitation to employ someone who needs work? And how exactly is the person who needs work made better off by the employer declining to "exploit" them? I believe sir I am not the one with the problem with logic.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby CanadianWolf » Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:17 am

Does the person need work or experience ? (And, yes, I did read that the Judge prefers two years of legal experience.) It would be interesting to know how many applications are made for this position.

This would be an attractive substitute for the third year of law school, in my opinion. (Plus, under this scheme, the Judge might even earn some tuition dollars.)

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby ggocat » Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:30 am

Lincoln wrote:Yeah, this isn't new. I know someone who did this two years ago. Difference is this is through OSCAR, I guess.

Agreed this isn't news. I knew somebody who did this when I was in school in 2007-2008. I suspect it has been going on for much longer than most people realize.

User avatar
jrf12886
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 11:52 am

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby jrf12886 » Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:39 am

Desert Fox wrote:I take this and quit the minute I got a jerb.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby CanadianWolf » Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:50 am

So long as that job does not involve practicing in federal court in Denver.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby 071816 » Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:54 am

Fuck Judge Martinez.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby vanwinkle » Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:35 pm

luthersloan wrote:Well, people almost always work, for money or otherwise, because they are in a situation that is less than ideal. Billionaires tend not to work. By your definition all trade, or employment, is by definition exploitation. A person exchanges something to another person that the other person needs, for the first persons benefit.

Yes, but you wouldn't write that an employer "takes advantage of" another person when they pay that person a living wage for their work.

luthersloan wrote:So at what point exactly does it become exploitation to employ someone who needs work?

When they pay nothing to that person. Part of the reason people need work is to have money to live. It becomes exploitation when you get those people to work, without paying them anything, except the mere hope that someone else will actually pay them later.

luthersloan wrote:And how exactly is the person who needs work made better off by the employer declining to "exploit" them?

Let's consider two obvious scenarios:

1) There are a bunch of people who need work, and a bunch of employers who pay people to work. Some employers go, "I'm not going to pay people anymore, because they'll work for free." Some people then work for free. Other employers see this, and go, "I can do the same thing!" More and more previously paying jobs become free jobs. Eventually, none of the people who need work get paid for doing work, because they have to choose between working for free and not working.

2) There are a bunch of people who need work, and a bunch of employers who pay people to work. All those employers keep paying people to work. Some of the bunch of people who need work thus keep getting paid for doing work.

Those who actually get paid in scenario #2 would not have been paid under scenario #1, so obviously they are made better off by the employers not exploiting them. In scenario #1, the only people who are better off are the employers; none of the workers are better off in that situation.

luthersloan wrote:I believe sir I am not the one with the problem with logic.

LOL. You might want to revise your belief system, then.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby dingbat » Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:44 pm

luthersloan wrote:Billionaires tend not to work.

What on earth makes you come to this conclusion?
Part of the reason that they've become billionaires is because they kept working even when they didn't have to. Not only that, when a billionaire "retires", they often still put in a lot of work in maintaining, growing or spending (philanthropy) their fortune.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.