Top Law Schools

Thanks everyone

You can just do both, but put in minimal efforts into law review.

Anonymous User wrote:You can just do both, but put in minimal efforts into law review.

I was told 20+ hours for law review per week. Is this a laughable overstatement?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:You can just do both, but put in minimal efforts into law review.

I was told 20+ hours for law review per week. Is this a laughable overstatement?

Some idiots do that, but you can half ass for substantially less hours than that. I used to do blue booking from memory. Saves a bunch of time.

You know, I had a job while I did law review, and I just didn't work very hard at law review. I still was chosen to be an editor, where I gave even less effort. I'd try to do both, and just do a shitty job at law review. No one that matters cares whether you didn't catch an errant pin cite. Law review is such a circle jerk. It's worth a resume line for OCI and clerkship applications. That's it.

you could pretty easily do both imo. Law review is as much of a time suck as you decide to make it. I'd advise not trying very hard, and making yourself appear to be a tad incompetent at the onset to have expectations set low.

I think it depends on the nature of the job. If it is an active job where you need to be constantly working during those hours, I would caution against doing Law Review for your own sanity. On the other hand, if the job involves sitting at a desk and allows you the flexibility to do school work/law review work, then I would go for it. Also 30-40k is amazing money as a 2L working 20 hrs a week, good for you!

fwiw, I was on law review and worked about 20 hours a week (except around exam times) through my 2L year. The job was clerical and involved filing paperwork in an undergrad department. maybe about 5 hours of actual work per week. this allowed me to do cite-checks and prepare for class while getting paid (was something like $14/hour) and was basically a funded study hall. i'm really happy i did the job, looking back, because it netted me a few thousand dollars (no where near 30k) and prevented me from taking out some extra loans, which I am very happy I do not have to pay back as a big law first year now.

No, law review is not worth it at all in your case. Given your goals, background, and stats, I think you should 100% take the job. The job will give you a bigger bump with tax groups than Law Review would because you'll actually get relevant experience and it further establishes your genuine interest in tax. You'll be very unlikely to gain any useful skills re tax by doing Law Review and firm attorneys know this. Your grades speak for your academic ability - you don't need LR for that (only really important for clerkships/elite lit).

Top quarter at CCN, targeting tax, with a big 4 background will do very well with West Coast tax practices (if you have ties). Most West Coast firms (especially non-lit) seem to care less about LR in general anyway. I didn't have LR and it wasn't brought up once and didn't seem to hurt me. Same with nearly all of my law school friends.

TLDR: Take the job because it will give you $$$, relevant experience, and will provide a bigger boost at OCI since you're targeting tax.

Lol at people putting in twenty hours a week into law review. As a 2L I spent a little over five hours a week on LR (T14 main journal) stuff. Obviously the drawback is that I didn't get a senior board position, but I still got an EE position and got to put that line on my resume. Unless you're gunning for EIC/ managing editor, working more than ten hours a week on LR is just a waste of time.

Long story short, OP you can definitely do both and still have plenty of time for school.

If you're on a secondary journal you can do effectively nothing.

lolololol 20 hours per week for journal? Jesus. Pick a note/comment topic that has a ton of sources and be proactive about that, that will limit you to one or two rough weekends of finishing that crap.

Second, as someone mentioned, bluebook from memory. Worst case, you get a few snarky emails from uppity editors, but you will likely still be 90%+ correct on your edits. If you insist on actually bluebooking at least get the digital copy so you can Ctrl+F everything.

Final thought, take a somewhat light course load in the fall -- where the majority of your note/comment writing will be done.

RaceJudicata wrote:Pick a note/comment topic that has a ton of sources and be proactive about that, that will limit you to one or two rough weekends of finishing that crap.

Second, as someone mentioned, bluebook from memory. Worst case, you get a few snarky emails from uppity editors, but you will likely still be 90%+ correct on your edits. If you insist on actually bluebooking at least get the digital copy so you can Ctrl+F everything.

Final thought, take a somewhat light course load in the fall -- where the majority of your note/comment writing will be done.

TCR. If you turn out to be one of those masochistic types that loves journal work, put in more work when it counts as a 3L. but coasting + light course load should give you more than enough time to work part-time.

I worked 20-40 hours a week, depending on deal flow, at my firm during 2L and basically full time during 3L. If you want to do journal, it's easy to half ass it. Hell, I half assed it this year as one of the senior editors. Nobody said shit to me, aside from passive-agressive comments, which I ignored. That said, I did make the mistake of doing moot court (which my school basically makes impossible to half ass) and would not recommend it.

If you feel like LR is going to take too much of your time, take the money instead. Your grades should be good enough for biglaw without LR, and the money is awesome.

Feel free to PM me with questions re: balancing school and work.

I did both, it was not a problem at all and working had no effect on the amount of work I was or wasn't going to do for law review. I could see this being a problem if you have to spend a lot of time commuting maybe but other than that you should be ok.

Incoming tax SA in the west coast. the tax people I interviewed with didn't care about journal at all. they were much more interested in my work experience and interest in the field (which can be demonstrated by a big4 experience but not law review).

In fact, a tax partner asked why I'm not doing journal, I said because it's not something I'm passionate about and I'd rather spend my time learning something I genuinely care about, like tax. The partner said he did the same in law school for the exact same reason. Same day offer.

Anonymous User wrote:Incoming tax SA in the west coast. the tax people I interviewed with didn't care about journal at all. they were much more interested in my work experience and interest in the field (which can be demonstrated by a big4 experience but not law review).

In fact, a tax partner asked why I'm not doing journal, I said because it's not something I'm passionate about and I'd rather spend my time learning something I genuinely care about, like tax. The partner said he did the same in law school for the exact same reason. Same day offer.

I hope bolded was just an interview answer and not a genuine display of your passion for tax law.

Law review is easy, especially has a 3L editor. I think if you have the opportunity to be on LR, especially if you're in the top 10%, it's a MUST. I just think going into an interview and having the grades but not on LR comes off as lazy. Like many have already said, it's just a bunch of busy work that can be done most times in a day or two (unless you're a managing editor or EIC).

Do them both; I did and I turned out alright.

I'm going to echo what everyone else said. I was on a T14 law review and put in about five hours a week as a 2L, maybe ten on the worst weeks (although, honestly, I can't actually remember a single week where I had to put in a full ten, except when there was a deadline for my note). I ended up with a senior/exec board position. If you're not gunning for a board position, I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about the time commitment.

jksdfasdfasfasdf

I am with the "do both and half ass law review" people. But if you had to pick one, I'd pick law review.

I did both, working at the firm I work at now. But I honestly regret doing law review because it detracted from more time I could have spent earning money (I was paid hourly) and getting actually relevant experience. The people on law review at my school were some of the worst and most agitating of the law students, so it was generally unpleasant as well.

I honestly don't get why some firms care about law review so much. It is totally irrelevant to anything in practice, aside from Bluebooking, which obviously isn't that hard and a lot of the nitty gritty is done by paralegals anyways. For litigators, it seems like getting any litigation experience like in a clinic would be more relevant. But I digress.

If you really just don't want to do law review, don't do law review. I don't think there's any logistical problem with doing both, so I don't think you can say it's because you want to work, but if you really don't want to do LR just decide not to do it.

It might fuck you for a tiny subset of firms (I think like White & Case has a journal requirement?) but it shouldn't have a broad impact. But like others have said, it's really only a lot of work if you make it a lot of work. Ask around and find out what journals are the least amount of work, and get on to one of those (that's what I did).