Help!! Critique my Personal Statement
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:34 pm
Its a little rough right now but let me know what you think.
As complex and impersonal as the law can seem, it remains true - and therefore inspiring - that a single person in a single lawsuit - really can change the world. Schools were desegregated because a single lawyer and some very brave clients made the choice to take bold action. Similarly, our rights to privacy, the press, assembly and speech have all been protected or expanded because, ultimately, one person and his or her dedicated attorneys made the choice to stand up for all of us. The law and the larger society were changed as the result of one simple case.
Amazing as it may sound, I had the opportunity to work on one such case. Last year, while doing a semester abroad in London, I interned at the law firm Gottesman Jones & Partners LLP and more particularly, its senior partner Edward Gottesman. Even at the ripe age of eighty-three, Mr. Gottesman was pouring his heart and soul into a case that will have far reaching implications, implications that may eventually shape my own practice of the law.
The specific case involved a man suing to recover his family’s art collection from a museum. The museum obtained the art from a donor, but it seems as though the donor had obtained the art indirectly through theft perpetrated by the Nazis.
The case involves many elements similar to that of a work of fiction: long-lost heirs, an inheritance, stolen art, international intrigue, and a determined lawyer. More than that though, it involves the struggle of the individual against the larger forces (both evil and seemingly altruistic ones) of society. Its outcome will potentially reveal a great deal about the way that modern society views individual liberty. Will the Court side with the individual, standing in the place of his relative who was, without question, wrongfully deprived of his possessions to feed the craven greed of a truly evil government? Or, will the Court choose to side with the legitimate interests of the museum - an institution that took no part in the theft and one that makes the art available for the whole world to see? It’s a tough choice.
What makes the case particularly interesting is that I can eventually see myself involved in similar litigation in the years to come. As the Communist dictatorship in Cuba teeters toward oblivion, it is inevitable that many Cubans, both in that nation and in the United States, will advance claims to recover art and other property confiscated by the Castro regime. Some of these claimants may even be members of my own family.
I cannot honestly say I know how the case of the museum art should turn out. I have a gut instinct, but it is, at this point, uninformed by any real knowledge of the law or of the policy considerations that form the basis of the law. As I obtain more understanding of the law, and as my insights become more refined, I will continue to wrestle with the competing interests that I came to see during my internship. I now realize that the law, in a world that has to balance both individual and collective needs, can never truly be clear-cut. Nuance pervades every case and every judicial decision. That is why my most pressing ambition over the next three years is not so much to learn the law as a set of facts to be memorized but instead as a process and an outlook that needs to be developed and cultivated. In that way, I can perhaps eventually answer some of my own questions and also be a more useful advocate in litigating on behalf of individuals and institutions whose legitimate rights and interest come into conflict.
As complex and impersonal as the law can seem, it remains true - and therefore inspiring - that a single person in a single lawsuit - really can change the world. Schools were desegregated because a single lawyer and some very brave clients made the choice to take bold action. Similarly, our rights to privacy, the press, assembly and speech have all been protected or expanded because, ultimately, one person and his or her dedicated attorneys made the choice to stand up for all of us. The law and the larger society were changed as the result of one simple case.
Amazing as it may sound, I had the opportunity to work on one such case. Last year, while doing a semester abroad in London, I interned at the law firm Gottesman Jones & Partners LLP and more particularly, its senior partner Edward Gottesman. Even at the ripe age of eighty-three, Mr. Gottesman was pouring his heart and soul into a case that will have far reaching implications, implications that may eventually shape my own practice of the law.
The specific case involved a man suing to recover his family’s art collection from a museum. The museum obtained the art from a donor, but it seems as though the donor had obtained the art indirectly through theft perpetrated by the Nazis.
The case involves many elements similar to that of a work of fiction: long-lost heirs, an inheritance, stolen art, international intrigue, and a determined lawyer. More than that though, it involves the struggle of the individual against the larger forces (both evil and seemingly altruistic ones) of society. Its outcome will potentially reveal a great deal about the way that modern society views individual liberty. Will the Court side with the individual, standing in the place of his relative who was, without question, wrongfully deprived of his possessions to feed the craven greed of a truly evil government? Or, will the Court choose to side with the legitimate interests of the museum - an institution that took no part in the theft and one that makes the art available for the whole world to see? It’s a tough choice.
What makes the case particularly interesting is that I can eventually see myself involved in similar litigation in the years to come. As the Communist dictatorship in Cuba teeters toward oblivion, it is inevitable that many Cubans, both in that nation and in the United States, will advance claims to recover art and other property confiscated by the Castro regime. Some of these claimants may even be members of my own family.
I cannot honestly say I know how the case of the museum art should turn out. I have a gut instinct, but it is, at this point, uninformed by any real knowledge of the law or of the policy considerations that form the basis of the law. As I obtain more understanding of the law, and as my insights become more refined, I will continue to wrestle with the competing interests that I came to see during my internship. I now realize that the law, in a world that has to balance both individual and collective needs, can never truly be clear-cut. Nuance pervades every case and every judicial decision. That is why my most pressing ambition over the next three years is not so much to learn the law as a set of facts to be memorized but instead as a process and an outlook that needs to be developed and cultivated. In that way, I can perhaps eventually answer some of my own questions and also be a more useful advocate in litigating on behalf of individuals and institutions whose legitimate rights and interest come into conflict.