Caveat emptor Forum

[Paul Campos]

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/21/a_judge ... ree_labor/

[notedgarfigaro]

ridiculous.

[Anonymous User]

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

[spleenworship]

ridiculous.

[Anonymous User]

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.

[prezidentv8]

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.

[20160810]

Still beats working for "Chuck"

[cinephile]

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?

[prezidentv8]

Still beats working for "Chuck"

Fact.

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

QF annoying characteristics of law school culture.

[okinawa]

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

[Wry]

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]

SPS conduct

[luthersloan]

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.

[vanwinkle]

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]

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

[09042014]

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

[Lincoln]

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

[luthersloan]

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]

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.)

[ggocat]

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.

[jrf12886]

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

[CanadianWolf]

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

[071816]

Fuck Judge Martinez.

[vanwinkle]

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.

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.

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.

I believe sir I am not the one with the problem with logic.

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

[dingbat]

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.