Top Law Schools

Bildungsroman wrote:

PDaddy wrote:You found nothing? Ok, I will post it. There are people in the legal community who wanted him disbarred back in 2009.

I did some research on Bybee last year because a client at a law firm (where I was working at the time) had her case go before Bybee on appeal.

Like I said before, being courteous and a good teacher of black letter law is not enough.

So you think he's unethical because he took a position you disagree with? Are you now backing off your earlier claim that "He has been known to have conflicts of interest yet refuse to step down from cases, accept perceived "gifts", etc."? Did you only make that apparently unsupported claim about gifts and conflicts because you knew your real reasoning would make it clear you're a partisan halfwit?

I confused Bybee with another judge, reversing the order of events.

So to the extent that I had Bybee confused with the other judge, you can say you are correct. To the extent that Bybee proceeded to accept from Latham (a firm that tried many cases in his court) $3.4M in legal services for free, my argument is no less potent. That does speak to a breakdown in his ethics.

The fact that he had to recuse himself doesn't lessen the probability that Latham gets preferable treatment in the courtrooms of Bybee's and Bush's cronies. The favor created a prejudicial effect once it was made public, but it had to be publicized.

You can't penalize Latham for doing a perceived "good deed". Should they have offered him free legal services? No. But big law forms have an obligation to do pro bono work; nowhere is it written that the client cannot be a judge. That leaves it up to judges to decide whether to accept the services. Moreover, Bybee only recused himself from Latham's cases because of public pressure.

The message to other firms is this: "If you go against Latham in a courtroom with a Bybee cronie, you are likely to lose".

If you guys don't see the mess he created by accepting that gift, that's pretty stubborn of you.

My issue with the waterboarding memo had little to do with waterboarding itself. If Bybee's claims had support, we would be talking politics, not ethics. Here, Bybee and Yoo used unfounded data to support waterboarding and then Bybee knowingly wrote a memo that used as its basis that false data. That's another ethics violation. Fwiw, I did oppose waterboarding, and I believe the U.S. should have been charged and sanctioned for it based on human rights violations, but that's an entirely different issue. You don't enable an administration to engage in those violations by lying to the public.

And if holding judges to the highest ethical standards makes me a partisan halfwit, I'll take that every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Bybee supporters are no less partisan than am I, that's for sure.

This is weird even by PDaddy standards.

PDaddy wrote:
The fact that he had to recuse himself doesn't lessen the probability that Latham gets preferable treatment in the courtrooms of Bybee's and Bush's cronies. The favor created a prejudicial effect once it was made public, but it had to be publicized.

You can't penalize Latham for doing a perceived "good deed". Should they have offered him free legal services? No. But big law forms have an obligation to do pro bono work; nowhere is it written that the client cannot be a judge. That leaves it up to judges to decide whether to accept the services. Moreover, Bybee only recused himself from Latham's cases because of public pressure.

The message to other firms is this: "If you go against Latham in a courtroom with a Bybee cronie, you are likely to lose".

If you guys don't see the mess he created by accepting that gift, that's pretty stubborn of you.

Alright, this is my last post on the subject. (Playing "Someone is wrong on the internet" isn't really a fun game.)

To the quote portion I can only say, "Wut?" The fact that he recused himself DOES less the probability that Latham gets preferable treatment in Bybee's courtroom. How in the world wouldn't it? In fact, Latham can't even come in his courtroom now because he keeps recusing himself. And if you honestly think that other judges look at a brief, see Latham on the cover, think, "Mwa ha! The pro bono servant of my conservative conspirator, Judge Bybee," and then treat them more favorably.... I have no idea how to respond to that other than to point out its absurdity.

Again you say that Bybee only recused due to public pressure. Can you please source that somewhere? Every half legitimate source I have seen has said he's done a good job with the recusal. Charles Geyh, a major authority on judicial recusal and by no means a conservative (see: http://info.law.indiana.edu/sb/page/normal/1409.html), "praised Bybee for providing a financial figure on his disclosure forms. 'Bybee is trying to do the right thing here, it sounds like, by coming up with a figure," see http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ns_valued/ . That same article points out that Bybee, whose entire net worth is $457,000, likely needed significant pro bono help to afford competent counsel to deal with the ethics charges.

Finally, you talk about Bybee cronies? Who are the Bybee cronies?

It's official: You mad bro.

Yeah, that's just not how recusals and conflicts work. You can't critique someone for taking legal services pro bono because a judge who knows him might therefore favor the firm giving the pro bono in the future... you just can't. There are rules about what constitutes a conflict, and that's not one of them. You don't get to just decide what the ethical rules should be. If Bybee's wife became a judge, sure, she'd probably have to recuse from Latham cases as well. But someone who happens to know Bybee? Judges exist in the real world, they know people. Under your construction of this, how would judges ever be able to get legal services anywhere?

(And why shouldn't Latham have offered their services? They know it means they will never be able to appear in his courtroom. And unless the masons have infiltrated the federal judiciary to a degree I'm unaware of, the idea that there's some kind of underground conspiracy of federal judges doing nothing but looking out for their cronies is ludicrous - it would require way too much organization and coordination.)

I don't know anything about Bybee beyond meeting one person who clerked for him, and I'm preeeeeeeeeetty sure that politically we would not be simpatico. I'm not supporting Bybee, I'm just responding to the argument.

Turning from the Bybee hubbub, is there any news on Judge Wallace or any info on what a clerkship with him is like?

Any info on who is interviewing this week or next?

Anonymous User wrote:Any info on who is interviewing this week or next?

Updates?

Any news from Sidney Thomas?

On good authority that Bea is done for 2014.

Thomas interviewed and hired at least one in May.

How far back does O'Scannlain fill his slots?

Any news from Clifton?

Anonymous User wrote:Any news from Clifton?

I know his OSCAR post "expired" basically immediately after applications went out on plan day. I'm not sure what that means, if anything.

I would also be interested to know if anyone has any (other) info on Clifton.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Any news from Clifton?

I know his OSCAR post "expired" basically immediately after applications went out on plan day. I'm not sure what that means, if anything.

I would also be interested to know if anyone has any (other) info on Clifton.

This info might be outdated, but I know that in years past, Clifton interviewed on plan, and that he would fly to San Francisco to do so. He was one of the 9th Cir. plan hold-outs for a long time.

Anonymous User wrote:On good authority that Bea is done for 2014.

Can confirm this.

Anything on Christen or Rawlinson?

Big lesson from this thread:

If you're interested in clerking for a 9th Cir judge, talk with someone who's recently clerked for a 9th Cir judge. There's a lot of garbage on this thread written by those who haven't. Most clerks (on the 9th Cir at least) get to know the personality and work habits of many of the other judges on the circuit. So, if you want to know what Judge Bea, Berzon, or Bybee are like, talk with a current or former clerk. Don't read this thread.

Signed: a recent CA9 clerk.

Anonymous User wrote:Big lesson from this thread:

If you're interested in clerking for a 9th Cir judge, talk with someone who's recently clerked for a 9th Cir judge. There's a lot of garbage on this thread written by those who haven't. Most clerks (on the 9th Cir at least) get to know the personality and work habits of many of the other judges on the circuit. So, if you want to know what Judge Bea, Berzon, or Bybee are like, talk with a current or former clerk. Don't read this thread.

Signed: a recent CA9 clerk.

Do you think former clerks would be willing to talk to someone who has no connection to them? If so, what would be the best way to approach them? I didn't go to a school (or undergrad) that produces many federal law clerks so I am at a bit of a loss. Thanks!

Anonymous User wrote:
Big lesson from this thread:

If you're interested in clerking for a 9th Cir judge, talk with someone who's recently clerked for a 9th Cir judge. There's a lot of garbage on this thread written by those who haven't. Most clerks (on the 9th Cir at least) get to know the personality and work habits of many of the other judges on the circuit. So, if you want to know what Judge Bea, Berzon, or Bybee are like, talk with a current or former clerk. Don't read this thread.

Signed: a recent CA9 clerk.

Do you think former clerks would be willing to talk to someone who has no connection to them? If so, what would be the best way to approach them? I didn't go to a school (or undergrad) that produces many federal law clerks so I am at a bit of a loss. Thanks!

I'd first look for SOME connection (undergrad or law firm if not law school). If you really don't have one, I suspect you'll have some luck with totally cold emails (e.g., some fraction of people you email will respond). I haven't gotten one of those, but I suspect I'd probably respond more often than not if I did get one.

Anything left for 2014?

I'd like to clerk for Noonan after I'm done with my district clerkship. Anyone know anything about what he looks for, any type of applicant he likes? I know he's already booked through 2015, but I'd like to clerk for him down the line after I work a little bit.

Anonymous User wrote:Any news from Clifton?

Clifton is done.

Anonymous User wrote:I'd like to clerk for Noonan after I'm done with my district clerkship. Anyone know anything about what he looks for, any type of applicant he likes? I know he's already booked through 2015, but I'd like to clerk for him down the line after I work a little bit.

What school do you go to? He hires a TON of Berkeley students. I think all or most of his clerks from the last few years have been Boalties.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'd like to clerk for Noonan after I'm done with my district clerkship. Anyone know anything about what he looks for, any type of applicant he likes? I know he's already booked through 2015, but I'd like to clerk for him down the line after I work a little bit.

What school do you go to? He hires a TON of Berkeley students. I think all or most of his clerks from the last few years have been Boalties.

UCLA/USC. Doing/done a CDCA.

Updates?