Ramblings of a Jackhole

The marketing department of Coke apparently punk’d a few of its in-house attorneys and shared it on You Tube. They had to use in-house counsel as they couldn’t afford outside counsel’s legal bills.

First Punk’d Attorney
Second Punk’d Attorney
Third Punk’d Attorney

Viral marketing is nothing to sneeze at.

Lawsuits filed by the overweight against those fast-food restaurants have peaked the interest in a lot of lawyers.

The obese are much easier to chase than ambulances, and some obese need all the money they can get.

Mrs. Applebee, the 6th grade teacher, posed the following problem to one of her arithmetic classes:

“A wealthy man dies and leaves ten million dollars. One-fifth is to go to his wife, one-fifth is to go to his son, one-sixth to his butler, and the rest to charity. Now, what does each get?”

After a very long silence in the classroom, Little Morris raised his hand. The teacher called on Little Morris for his answer. With complete sincerity in his voice, Little Morris answered, “A lawyer!”

Allegedly this is from a federal law clerk who Vinson & Elkins declined to hire. He sent the below e-mail asking V&E to reconsider him for a position. In particular the second-to-last paragraph is my favorite. I believe all law school classes have at least one member like this. Another reason to avoid the knee-jerk reaction and shoot off an email. Write a formal letter and make sure you really know what you want to (and should) say.

From: Chatman, Carliss
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:42 AM
To: Rumbaugh, Holly; Dennis, Patrick; Lankau, Tim

Subject: FW: request to reconsider George Luce

This is a guy I interviewed last week. WTF?

—–Original Message—–

From: George_Luce@lamd.uscourts.gov [mailto:George_Luce@lamd.uscourts.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:25 AM
To: Johnson, Loreatha
Cc: Schick, Robert M.; Davidow, Jennifer; Harvin, David; Pipkin, Emily; Kornegay, Nancy; Mehta, Persis; Murphy, George; Hodge, Justin; Reeder, James; Chatman, Carliss; Held, Kenneth; Lawson, Corey; Powers, Jason; Omar, Amin

Subject: request to reconsider George Luce

Dear Loreatha,

I received your letter dated May 11, and I am extremely disappointed that Vinson & Elkins has chosen not to extend me an offer. I remain convinced that V&E is the right firm for me. While it is hard to quibble with the verdict of a panel of 14 people, I believe that a real mistake was made, and I ask that my application be reconsidered.

I assume that V&E’s chief objective in hiring new associates is to get the best people it can get. Please consider the fact that in law school, I earned the top score in my section on EVERY PAPER in both of my legal writing courses. (The grading was done anonymously.) My article was selected for publication in the Northwestern Law Review, which is one of the top law reviews in the country. Judge Amy St. Eve, a federal judge with whom I externed, will tell you that I was the best extern she ever had (and her externs were mostly cream-of-the-crop Northwestern students, many of whom went on to federal appellate clerkships). The Judge I work for now, as well as other people with whom I have worked, will tell you that I have unusual talent as a legal analyst. I suggest that before you conclude that I don’t measure up to V&E’s standards, you ask people with whom I have worked what they think about my work and my abilities. At risk of sounding arrogant, I submit that I would be a standout performer at V&E, even though V&E is an elite firm that can select from among the best candidates.

I sensed that some of my interviewers were uncomfortable with the fact that I am not committed to a specific substantive area of law. I would argue, however, that the tools that we bring to the table as lawyers are far more important than the direct, “relevant” experience we bring. “Practical” experience is no substitute for creative intelligence, intellectual sophistication, and pure tenacity. The career clerk in my judge’s chambers has 20+ years of experience, so she knows a lot of things that I don’t know. But she is not in my league as a legal analyst and writer. I have seen enough during my clerkship to say with confidence that I am capable of better work – far better work – than most of the “experienced” attorneys who practice before my judge.

As a judicial clerk, I have been deeply immersed in all sorts of cases at every phase of the litigation process. There are many procedural issues that are common across all different substantive areas of law. There are many connections and overlaps between the different substantive areas. Even within a given substantive area, every case is different, turning on its own facts. The relatively inexperienced associates who specialize in a particular area will have only seen a small part of the universe of possible issues that may arise in their area. Given these facts, I am highly skeptical that, say, a 3rd-year associate who has specialized in “oil and gas” is going to be light years ahead of me in that field. The hypothetical 3rd-year associate will certainly know a lot more than I know about the art and practice of lawyering. But it is highly doubtful that her substantive oil and gas knowledge (which of course exceeds mine) will give her a significant advantage over me when it comes time to analyze the next oil and gas case (which will no doubt involve issues that neither of us have seen before). I want to work on interesting, challenging cases, but I don’t believe it would be rational for me to arbitrarily limit myself to a specific substantive area of law at this point in my career. I’ll find my niche down the road. I would think that V&E would prefer that their new associates be open-minded enough to try different things.

I would also add that there are intangible factors to be considered. I left a lucrative job in my mid-thirties, working hard to score in the top 1% nationwide on the LSAT so I could go to an elite law school. (I was the oldest guy in my class.) When I was a computer programmer, I was a one-man consulting firm, saving my employer (the state of Louisiana) millions of dollars in costs and making the lives of thousands of people (the system’s users) easier. Often, I would go to bed at night, half dreaming, half awake, obsessing over a thorny problem that I encountered. When the creative inspiration would come in the morning, those were the greatest thrills of my life. I know what its like to work 80-hour weeks for months on end. I know what’s it like to be considered the expert of last resort – the guy they call in the middle of the night when the data gets corrupted and no one else can figure out what to do. I take my work SERIOUSLY and I take great pride in what I do. I would submit that these are the qualities that can make me a “franchise player” at V&E.

I recognize that the chance that you will reconsider and extend me an offer are very slim. (Lawyers tend to be extremely risk-averse and unwilling to do things differently than they’ve done before.) But please give this request some serious consideration. I suggest that you begin by talking with some of the folks who have worked with me.

Finally, if you are not willing to change your verdict on me, would you please do the favor of giving me some honest feedback about why you were not impressed enough with me to make an offer? Is it my age? (I’m 39, but I’m healthier than most 25-year-olds.) Is it that I’m losing my hair? (I am willing to undergo transplants!) Is it the fact that I wore a pink shirt to my interview? (My wife picked it out.) Is it the fact that I took the Louisiana bar exam before taking the Texas bar exam? (I took the Louisiana exam because I wanted to get licensed in my home state, and I wanted to get it out of the way first because I had to learn all that civil code stuff.) Is it because I have spent most of my life in Louisiana? (Houston is only a 3-hour car ride or a 40-minute plane ride from Baton Rouge.) Is it because I have a minor speech impediment (a “lacerated S”)? Is it because I am introverted? Do I come across as arrogant? Too timid? Is it because I’m not committed to a specific substantive area of litigation?

You judged me as a qualified candidate based on my paper credentials, as evidenced by your willingness to expend the resources to bring me in for an interview. I assure you that I am a much better lawyer than even my paper credentials suggest! Please give me another look. It would be a shame if V&E and me are deprived of a mutually profitable relationship because I failed to present myself well in person on May 8.

Sincerely,

George Luce

One afternoon a lawyer was riding in his limousine when he saw two men along the roadside eating grass. He ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate.

He asked one man, “Why are you eating grass?”

“We don’t have any money for food,” the poor man replied. “We have to eat grass.”

“Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I’ll feed you” the lawyer said.

“But sir, I have a wife and two children with me. They are over there, under that tree.”

“Bring them along” the lawyer replied. Turning to the other poor man he stated, “You come with us also.”

The second man, in a pitiful voice then said, “But sir, I also have a wife and SIX children with me!”

“Bring them all, as well,” the lawyer answered.

They all entered the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limousine was.

Once underway, one of the poor fellows turned to the lawyer and said;

“Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you.”

The lawyer replied, “Glad to do it. You’ll really love my place. The grass is almost a foot high.”