Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:59 pm

The problem gets amplified during economically challenging times. Political connections often come through influential friends & family, not necessarily from the young lawyer himself/herself.

andythefir
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:56 am

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby andythefir » Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:16 pm

I'm a small town ADA who has sat in on multiple hiring decisions. To answer your question directly, law review would be a big boost in my estimation of an applicant. Lack of law review wouldn't hurt, but an office willing to take anyone fresh out of law school will have to do at least some training, anyway. Law review, like any of the other marginal credentials available to law students, is a sign of ambition and someone, somewhere picking you over someone else.

Is it worth foregoing moot court? I'd say so. I did moot court and learned basically nothing from it that helps at my job. Is it worth foregoing internships at a local PD/DA? Definitely not, but it will be a dogfight to get a job if you're picky about where you want to be a DA. My school (ND) gave us class credit for those kinds of internships, so it wasn't an either/or issue.

Finally, I'd like to add that there have been some replies that have implied that it is difficult to get a job as a DA. This is true for desirable locations. If you're willing to relocate to small towns, it's an entirely different question. In my corner of SE NM, good jobs stay open because no one applies. Bigger towns are competitive, but a pulse and bar card will get you in my office.

User avatar
transferror
Posts: 816
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:42 pm

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby transferror » Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Thank you for all your comments. I will be at the DA's 20+ hours/week. Moreover, I am already in a Journal that requires only a few hours/semester. I was hoping that would be enough for back-up plans (small firm, etc.).

How much more help would Law Review be versus a Secondary Journal. The Law Review at my school requires substantial amount of hours that may cut into the hours I will be at the DA's.

Also, I am in California, and will only be applying to CA DA Offices - if there is a DA Office in CA that cares about Law Review (like Manhattan DA/PDs in Washington) please let me know!

Thank you again for all the info again!


A secondary journal is fine, especially if your LR has a high threshold for hours. Clerkships with state trial judges are generally not that difficult to obtain so the distinction between LR and a secondary journal isn't as important as it might be for a federal judge, but I know that even some state trial judges will toss an app without any sort of journal (at least here in NJ/PA/NYC).


I imagine the Los Angeles DA (and maybe San Fran) is very competitive, but I'm on the other coast so I don't know much about CA. I think you're fine, though--working for a DA's office during the semester is a great start. Just keep doing stuff like that and you'll be fine. Even for the offices that consider LR, IME it's more of secondary preferred metric or a tiebreaker for two otherwise qualified candidates. I'm not sure any DA would trash your resume just because you don't have it, but like the above poster said, it can certainly give a positive boost.

User avatar
msch0i
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:55 pm

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby msch0i » Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:55 am

wwwcol wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
msch0i wrote:LR is almost a requirement for a clerkship.


this is a stretch.


And by stretch, we mean patently false depending on school. Maybe from a random T1, but probably not from a T14 and certainly not from a t6


I guess I can only speak to non-T14 schools, and OP is at a school just outside of T14. Based on my experience and others who interviewed in my year at UCLA, if you didn't have LR on your resume, you were asked why it wasn't. And you damn well have better had a good answer for it. Judges were looking for clerks who spent their law school years doing more than gunning for good grades, and I guess LR was the best measure of competency for a judicial clerk position (though I don't necessarily agree with it). I spent a summer at the 9th circuit and met lots of HYS grads who didn't have LR, but the few non-T14 grads I had met had all been on LR.
Last edited by msch0i on Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22813
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:59 am

There are also judges who won't care whether you have LR, regardless of what school, and judges who will want all candidates to have law review, regardless of what school. It depends on the individual judge.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273145
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:52 pm

Thank you all. I have decided to at least do the Write-on for Law Review, and if I get in, I'll decide then. Thank you all again!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273145
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:20 pm

CanadianWolf wrote:Washington state ? DC ?

Regardless, demonstrated commitment is the most important factor for public defenders--especially the federal public defenders which usually wants a minimum 5 years as a state or local PD. Spanish proficiency/fluency is second; followed by trial advocacy &/or moot court. Grades tend to be a non-factor; same with respect to class rank. Law review is viewed as insignificant unless going to an appellate division where it may have some positive impact.

Law review shows one's ability & tolerance to do serious hours of grunt work. Getting published or making editor show additional talents; all of which mean very little to hiring considerations for public defender work.


PDS is one of the top PD offices in America. I interviewed with them and I know law review was one of the reasons why I got interviewed. I believe the run of the mill PD office does not care one bit about anything other than commitment because the pay is low and the work is high.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby Tanicius » Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
CanadianWolf wrote:Washington state ? DC ?

Regardless, demonstrated commitment is the most important factor for public defenders--especially the federal public defenders which usually wants a minimum 5 years as a state or local PD. Spanish proficiency/fluency is second; followed by trial advocacy &/or moot court. Grades tend to be a non-factor; same with respect to class rank. Law review is viewed as insignificant unless going to an appellate division where it may have some positive impact.

Law review shows one's ability & tolerance to do serious hours of grunt work. Getting published or making editor show additional talents; all of which mean very little to hiring considerations for public defender work.


PDS is one of the top PD offices in America. I interviewed with them and I know law review was one of the reasons why I got interviewed. I believe the run of the mill PD office does not care one bit about anything other than commitment because the pay is low and the work is high.


PDS is just a more academic office. The case loads are lower, you have much more time to spend on your cases arguing the finer points of law, and the opponents are US attorneys who are just as academic. PDS is a federal defender unit in disguise. Law review is seen as a helpful indicator to that office because you have to have an academic mind to get accepted onto law review.

The reason other offices don't care about law review isn't because the pay is low but because fine points of law don't really matter in the trenches of most court systems. Judges rarely even follow the law as it applies to 4th Amendment and evidentiary rulings. You just show up and shoot from the hip, and shit falls where it falls. Knowing how to communicate with clients and diplomatically advise them to plead guilty, or negotiating a deal with opposing counsel, or taking a case to trial with just a few hour's of prep are the three most important skills you need to have at the vast majority of public defender offices, including most of the nationally prestigious ones like SF, Miami, and the various NYC offices. Law review isn't very helpful because you so rarely do anything academic at those offices unless you are working on a landmark motion for your jurisdiction or an appeal.

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:54 am

"negotiating a deal with opposing counsel" isn't the way that I would phrase dealings between prosecutors & defense counsel. Prosecutors typically hold all the cards.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby Tanicius » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:00 am

CanadianWolf wrote:"negotiating a deal with opposing counsel" isn't the way that I would phrase dealings between prosecutors & defense counsel. Prosecutors typically hold all the cards.


For many cases, sure. But the cards defense attorneys learn to use are:

- 1) The prosecutor's personal value of time. Prosecutors that offer bad deals waste a lot of their time in trial on stupid cases, and they lose more of these cases than they expect. Are we really going to trial over five days of jail? Is that seriously going to be what causes you to risk a fairly slamdunk case at trial and shoot your whole week to nothing? Because I'm the defense and I have no case whatsoever, so I'm just doing what my client wants. You, on the other hand, could be doing something more important and now you're not gonna. Better hope the jury doesn't screw up or you do it all for nothing. Just give him 10 days in jail instead of 15 and we can both go home tonight at 5pm.

- 2) Conserving state resources. This one's pretty clear cut. Come on, prosecutor -- this is a dumb case, nobody got hurt, we both know my guy will be right back here as soon as he gets out of jail. Drop the open cases and let him continue going through treatment, and might have a shot of not having to see him back here ten more times before Christmas.

- 3) The prosecutor's conscience. There can be extenuating circumstances in all kinds of cases. It's a run of the mill DWI but the guy is an undocumented immigrant, so please let him plead to something other than the DWI to avoid getting him kicked out of the country after building a family here for 10 years. This is a true art form of negotiation, because you have to strike a delicate balance between raising legitimate concerns and raising tiny violin concerns that for some reason are presenting an actual roadblock to a plea. Could be something as simple as the client doesn't want to waste hours and money every week coming down to probation to drop random urine tests because the police report said they smelled like weed during the theft case. A lot of prosecutors listen to that, say "I hear you," and nix that part of the original offer. A lot of "conscience" negotiation angles hing more on the prosecutor's secret desire to dump the case but inability without relief from upper management. They worry they'll look back in front of management, but are searching for an excuse to take to them on why they gave a ridiculous offer or dismissed a certain case.

- 4) Good facts. We actually often have them. They're rarely good enough be seen as the most likely explanation for what happened, but a lot of prosecutors will use good defense facts as trading cards. The ID was shady? Okay agreed; in that case I'll come down on the community service time he wants to do. Wait you have a witness that says your guy wasn't the driver of the truck? Whatever, I bet that witness has credibility problems up the wazoo, but fine, let's talk alternatives to the standard first-time DWI offer. With some prosecutors, talking about good facts makes them go beserk with bloodlust, so you learn to litigate absolutely nothing with them until the very latest point that you have to and shock them with cards up your sleeve. For other prosecutors, they're bored, tired, jaded, etc, and again just want a reason to dump cases, so when you give 'em a good reason then that is exactly what they end up doing.

- 5) Getting buddy buddy. Yeah it's cliche, and private defense attorneys seem to think this is the most important trick in the book. It really only works on a few prosecutors in my jurisdiction, but when it works it seriously, seriously works. You (ethically, without breaching confidentiality and out of the client's earshot) give the prosecutor an indication that you aren't exactly any more impressed with your client than the prosecutor is, that you're just here to do your job, and right now your job is a pain in the neck because you're just trying to resolve a deadbeat loser case. Crack some jokes about how fucked you are. Some of the best deals I've gotten on hard cases have come from the most rightwing tough-on-crime prosecutors in the office who think it's funny and feel bad for me.

- 6) Finer points of sentencing issues. When you do the job a few months, you start to pick up patterns and recognize recurring issues with certain kinds of cases. You can develop a sense to resolve the case in a more holistic manner. Me: Wait a second -- why is he pleading to the charge that will revoke his driver's license? He'll be right back here if we do that one. Let's switch to the other charge so all he has to do is pay $20 bucks and get his license back. Prosecutor: Oh, yeah for sure. Calculating jail credit, immigration consequences, lists of probation tasks, etc are all things you learn to do on the fly when before you just would never think about them and sign your client away to whatever deal is offered. After some experience though, you learn there are a lot of moving parts to deals that the prosecutors don't even have a position on but that you have to catch before it's too late. You can often leverage these things into better deals than the offer that was just made if you catch something the prosecutor didn't notice, too.
Last edited by Tanicius on Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:08 am

I understand that plea offers often come down to budget & caseload issues, but the prosecutor still holds all the cards.

Good Facts: Prosecutors know when they have a solid case. Raising a strong defense is certainly something an ADA will consider, but they still hold all the cards. Their hand may not be a sure winner, but the prosecutor still has the discretion as to whether or not a plea deal will even be offered.
Last edited by CanadianWolf on Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22813
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:09 am

That doesn't mean defense attorneys don't try.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby Tanicius » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:12 am

CanadianWolf wrote:I understand that plea offers often come down to budget & caseload issues, but the prosecutor still holds all the cards.


Those are pretty big cards though. The prosecutor's cards are "the evidence" and "the criminal record." The above list comprises probably 40% of what I do whenever I am in court. 40% of my time in court, just spent talking to prosecutors and getting deals changed. That's quite a bit of time. (Another 20% constitutes actually being on the record taking a plea or arguing something, and the final 40% is taken up by talking to clients. Less than 1% of my time in court is spent looking at a statute or case law of any kind.) We're basically the legal version of a trauma surgeon: We don't even get to stop the bleeding -- we just focus on the biggest blood vessels that are most key to each individual client, and then we patch them up as best we can and send them on their way.

CanadianWolf wrote:Good Facts: Prosecutors know when they have a solid case. Raising a strong defense is certainly something an ADA will consider, but they still hold all the cards. Their hand may not be a sure winner, but the prosecutor still has the discretion as to whether or not a plea deal will even be offered.


That's different from where I work then. There is always an offer unless the case is a big-time felony with life in prison without parole, but even then the prosecutors tend to offer something better.

Even if the prosecutor doesn't make an offer, the judge has the authority to accept a plea deal on her own, without regard to what the prosecutor wants.

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:17 am

Defense counsel should always try for the best deal for a client. The prosecutors still hold all the cards.

Now a prosecutor may "lose" a witness, & that prompts a generous plea offer.

Re: Immigration cases. May vary by jurisdiction, but many prosecutors prefer deportation for "offenders". This is a difficult area for criminal defense attorneys because you have to deal with two different courts when immigration issues arise.

The "buddy" system certainly exists in the federal system--even though highly unethical. That's one reason that federal criminal defense tends to lean toward being a closed club.

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:21 am

Things certainly vary by jurisdiction for both prosecutors & defense counsel. Big difference is whether defense counsel is appointed, a public defender or privately obtained.

Also, in some rural jurisdictions, it's tough for defense counsel to seat a fair jury because they all know or are related to someone in law enforcement.

Regardless, the theme is still the same = the prosecutors hold all the cards.

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:25 am

Some states use a county by county PD system. An appointed or county paid defense counsel might have in excess of 300 cases at a time. Statewide PD systems tend to be better funded, have investigator, senior counsel for advice & better caseload distribution. But, the prosecutors still hold all the cards re: plea deals.

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:30 am

The single best weapon for defense counsel remains the right to a trial by jury as it only takes one "holdout" for the defense to "win".

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:35 am

Huge difference between cases in federal versus state court. When indicted in federal court, the case is essentially "over". When indicted in state court, the case is just beginning. This is due to the vast resources of the feds versus tight state budgets.

Feds conviction rate tends to stay in the high, the very high, 90% (like 98%). Repeatedly fight the feds in criminal matters & private defense counsel might end up with a charge such as money laundering.

User avatar
LA Spring
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:52 pm

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby LA Spring » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:41 am

Tanicius wrote:For many cases, sure. But the cards defense attorneys learn to use are:

- 1) The prosecutor's personal value of time. Prosecutors that offer bad deals waste a lot of their time in trial on stupid cases, and they lose more of these cases than they expect. Are we really going to trial over five days of jail? Is that seriously going to be what causes you to risk a fairly slamdunk case at trial and shoot your whole week to nothing? Because I'm the defense and I have no case whatsoever, so I'm just doing what my client wants. You, on the other hand, could be doing something more important and now you're not gonna. Better hope the jury doesn't screw up or you do it all for nothing. Just give him 10 days in jail instead of 15 and we can both go home tonight at 5pm.

- 2) Conserving state resources. This one's pretty clear cut. Come on, prosecutor -- this is a dumb case, nobody got hurt, we both know my guy will be right back here as soon as he gets out of jail. Drop the open cases and let him continue going through treatment, and might have a shot of not having to see him back here ten more times before Christmas.

- 3) The prosecutor's conscience. There can be extenuating circumstances in all kinds of cases. It's a run of the mill DWI but the guy is an undocumented immigrant, so please let him plead to something other than the DWI to avoid getting him kicked out of the country after building a family here for 10 years. This is a true art form of negotiation, because you have to strike a delicate balance between raising legitimate concerns and raising tiny violin concerns that for some reason are presenting an actual roadblock to a plea. Could be something as simple as the client doesn't want to waste hours and money every week coming down to probation to drop random urine tests because the police report said they smelled like weed during the theft case. A lot of prosecutors listen to that, say "I hear you," and nix that part of the original offer. A lot of "conscience" negotiation angles hing more on the prosecutor's secret desire to dump the case but inability without relief from upper management. They worry they'll look back in front of management, but are searching for an excuse to take to them on why they gave a ridiculous offer or dismissed a certain case.

- 4) Good facts. We actually often have them. They're rarely good enough be seen as the most likely explanation for what happened, but a lot of prosecutors will use good defense facts as trading cards. The ID was shady? Okay agreed; in that case I'll come down on the community service time he wants to do. Wait you have a witness that says your guy wasn't the driver of the truck? Whatever, I bet that witness has credibility problems up the wazoo, but fine, let's talk alternatives to the standard first-time DWI offer. With some prosecutors, talking about good facts makes them go beserk with bloodlust, so you learn to litigate absolutely nothing with them until the very latest point that you have to and shock them with cards up your sleeve. For other prosecutors, they're bored, tired, jaded, etc, and again just want a reason to dump cases, so when you give 'em a good reason then that is exactly what they end up doing.

- 5) Getting buddy buddy. Yeah it's cliche, and private defense attorneys seem to think this is the most important trick in the book. It really only works on a few prosecutors in my jurisdiction, but when it works it seriously, seriously works. You (ethically, without breaching confidentiality and out of the client's earshot) give the prosecutor an indication that you aren't exactly any more impressed with your client than the prosecutor is, that you're just here to do your job, and right now your job is a pain in the neck because you're just trying to resolve a deadbeat loser case. Crack some jokes about how fucked you are. Some of the best deals I've gotten on hard cases have come from the most rightwing tough-on-crime prosecutors in the office who think it's funny and feel bad for me.

- 6) Finer points of sentencing issues. When you do the job a few months, you start to pick up patterns and recognize recurring issues with certain kinds of cases. You can develop a sense to resolve the case in a more holistic manner. Me: Wait a second -- why is he pleading to the charge that will revoke his driver's license? He'll be right back here if we do that one. Let's switch to the other charge so all he has to do is pay $20 bucks and get his license back. Prosecutor: Oh, yeah for sure. Calculating jail credit, immigration consequences, lists of probation tasks, etc are all things you learn to do on the fly when before you just would never think about them and sign your client away to whatever deal is offered. After some experience though, you learn there are a lot of moving parts to deals that the prosecutors don't even have a position on but that you have to catch before it's too late. You can often leverage these things into better deals than the offer that was just made if you catch something the prosecutor didn't notice, too.

What a great informative post! How is it different when they have a case involving millions of dollars — any suggestions? (I started to say a mostly circumstantial case, but that would not have been entirely accurate, but horseshoes close.)

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22813
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:57 am

CanadianWolf wrote:The prosecutors still hold all the cards.

CanadianWolf wrote:But, the prosecutors still hold all the cards re: plea deals.

CanadianWolf wrote:Regardless, the theme is still the same = the prosecutors hold all the cards.

Is your issue simply with calling this "negotiation," then? Or are you trying to suggest there isn't actually back-and-forth between defense and prosecution about what the final deal will actually be?

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:16 am

You can negotiate until the cows come home. You, as defense counsel, can negotiate your heart out. But, the prosecutor still holds all the power as to whether or not a plea deal will even be offered and, if so, the terms of any proffered deal. Nothing that defense counsel can do if the prosecutor refuses to "negotiate" or to offer any plea deal whatsoever.

The best that defense counsel can do within his or her control is to prepare for trial & always demand a jury trial.
Last edited by CanadianWolf on Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:18 am

I don't get the point of your last two posts. Well, your second post disappeared, but I was referring to posts by A.Noney Mouse

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:21 am

CanadianWolf wrote:I don't get the point of your last two posts. Well, your second post disappeared, but I was referring to posts by A.Nony Mouse


Not sure what I did to cause a double post.
Last edited by CanadianWolf on Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:24 am

I don't. It's just that what one normally calls "negotiations" doesn't really exist in this arena because the prosecutor has all the power.

Nevertheless, good deals can be had if the prosecutor just doesn't want to deal with the case for budgetary or other priority reasons--none of which are in the control of defense counsel.

Defense counsel's only real chip is the power to demand a trial by jury.
Last edited by CanadianWolf on Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Law Review and DA/PDs Offices

Postby CanadianWolf » Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:28 am

Again, I miss the point of your repetitive posts.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.