There is a saying about law school that I heard shortly after enrolling at FSU: "The first year, they scare you to death. The second year, they work you to death. The third year, they bore you to death."
I think perhaps that statement should apply to law school students in a good economy, or maybe to the very top students here right now. It does not exactly hold true for me.
The part about the first year is correct. I had no idea how I was doing that initial semester. Then exam grades posted and I had some notion of where I fit into the scheme.
In the second year, you are supposedly "worked to death" because you become more involved in the student organizations you were selected for in your first year, while also trying to find that summer associate job which will hopefully turn into an offer for full time associate upon graduation. By your third year of law school, you are supposed to be just ready to get out.
The problem, at least for me, is that there were not that many jobs to find during my second year due to the economy. I worked hard and became more involved in the Mock Trial Team, but really my class load stayed the same as my first year- which was plenty. The work load has remained at the same level for my third year as well.
What the classroom can teach me about becoming a good lawyer is reduced from my first and second years, but I am much too busy to be "bored to death." Some of my colleagues have said that they are going to enjoy this last year of law school. These friends of mine are smart enough to be able to work part time for firms during the week, take weekend trips, participate in time consuming extracurricular activities like Law Review, and still make great grades.
I have no such talent. I can not "wing it" in any part of law school. Grades take nearly 100% of my effort. As an example, one of my classes this semester is offered only for a pass/fail grade. We also have quizzes as part of that class grade rather than the entire thing riding on the final exam. For the first quiz, I tried to "wing it," and only studied for an hour. When the grades came back last week, mine was about the second lowest in the class.
So, there is work to be done. Right now, I am set to graduate with honors. I will have to keep my nose to the grindstone to have a shot at maintaining that position. Graduating with high honors is out of reach... And then we'll see what the future holds.
The students set for high honors in my class have certainly earned their spots and done much to further the academic reputation of the FSU College of Law. I was amused by the Facebook post of one a few weeks ago: "When class was cancelled my 1L year, I caught up on reading. 2L year? I applied to jobs. 3L year? I redecorate my bathroom...I'll try to remember that I'm a law school student and not a real housewife of Tallahassee." Several others near the top of the class clicked the "like" button for this post.
As for me, I would just like to have my apartment cleaned. I try to clean a little each day, but it is a losing battle.
Law school is enjoyable, though. I cannot deny it. Tonight I ate dinner at the Suwannee Room and watched a little of the Jets and Dolphins football game in Miami on the televisions. One friend from law school is actually at the game right now. Must be even nicer.
Until Next Time,
Nathan Marshburn
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The Mock Trial Intramural Competition
This week saw the newest members of the Mock Trial Team go head to head against each other in an intramural competition. The contest is designed as a teaching mechanism to prepare the students for both future tournaments at other schools and for real trials later in their careers.
To get ready, the new members were largely taught by others on the team. Three 3L students and one recent graduate served as the coaches. They put in many hours training the new students on the basics of trial practice. Personally, I sat in on a couple of practices, and I also served as a "jury member" for two rounds of the competition.
The new guys are impressive. We have a good shot at winning some trophies this year, though I have also learned Mock Trial judging is so subjective that there is no way to predict outcomes with certainty.
Intramurals is the same type of competition that I went through last year, but it is much easier being on this side of it. I tried to give helpful feedback. At this stage, I think it is most important to build confidence in our new team members. We should make sure they know the skills to conduct a trial, but they should also believe that they can beat anyone who walks into the room. Attitude and charisma can sway a jury and dominate a trial, at least in my opinion. As Mr. Crump told me when I worked at his firm, "Give the jury popcorn and turn down the lights." A belief in your own abilities is essential to win a trial.
The President of the Mock Trial Team, Christian Cutillo, and the Intramural Chair, Corinne Koeppen, did a fantastic job in organizing the tournament and making sure things ran smoothly. Wayne Hogan, a prominent trial attorney and major benefactor of the law school and the Mock Trial Team, attended the reception and the championship round.
Congratulations to Tara Klimek, an outstanding 2L who won the "Best Advocate" award.
The intramural competition was a lot of fun and an important part of the Mock Trial Team experience. I enjoyed watching all the performances and seeing how hard everyone worked.
Once again, if I have used your name in this blog post and you want me to remove it, just Facebook me.
Until Next Time,
Nathan Marshburn
To get ready, the new members were largely taught by others on the team. Three 3L students and one recent graduate served as the coaches. They put in many hours training the new students on the basics of trial practice. Personally, I sat in on a couple of practices, and I also served as a "jury member" for two rounds of the competition.
The new guys are impressive. We have a good shot at winning some trophies this year, though I have also learned Mock Trial judging is so subjective that there is no way to predict outcomes with certainty.
Intramurals is the same type of competition that I went through last year, but it is much easier being on this side of it. I tried to give helpful feedback. At this stage, I think it is most important to build confidence in our new team members. We should make sure they know the skills to conduct a trial, but they should also believe that they can beat anyone who walks into the room. Attitude and charisma can sway a jury and dominate a trial, at least in my opinion. As Mr. Crump told me when I worked at his firm, "Give the jury popcorn and turn down the lights." A belief in your own abilities is essential to win a trial.
The President of the Mock Trial Team, Christian Cutillo, and the Intramural Chair, Corinne Koeppen, did a fantastic job in organizing the tournament and making sure things ran smoothly. Wayne Hogan, a prominent trial attorney and major benefactor of the law school and the Mock Trial Team, attended the reception and the championship round.
Congratulations to Tara Klimek, an outstanding 2L who won the "Best Advocate" award.
The intramural competition was a lot of fun and an important part of the Mock Trial Team experience. I enjoyed watching all the performances and seeing how hard everyone worked.
Once again, if I have used your name in this blog post and you want me to remove it, just Facebook me.
Until Next Time,
Nathan Marshburn
Friday, September 10, 2010
20 Hours with the Public Defender
One of the graduation requirements of the Florida State College of Law is to perform 20 hours of pro bono work. The school awards a certificate if you complete even more hours.
In the week prior to the beginning of classes, I worked for 20 hours at the Leon County Public Defender's office. To my surprise, I actually enjoyed it there. My job was to help the office with initial intake interviews, to talk with jail inmates about the pending charges against them and get their side of the story.
As the supervising attorney told me, dealing with the clients is about 75% of what attorneys in that office do. The intake interviews would give me a good feel for the nature of the job. If I did not like the face to face contact, he said, then perhaps work as a prosecutor would be more appropriate.
The technology to conduct the interviews was impressive- at least to me. I did not have to actually visit the jail. Instead, a small camera set on top of the computer monitor at my desk. I called the jail and identified the inmate with whom I needed to speak. The jail sent the inmate to one of several communication pods, labeled A through M. Each pod was equipped with a camera, monitor and telephone, and I could access any of the pods on my computer. When the inmate came into the pod and picked up the phone, I could see and hear him and he could see and hear me.
After about 20 hours of doing these interviews, I realized again how socially liberal I can be at times. I began to think that our criminal justice system needs serious revamping. Many of these inmates were locked up for felony possession of cocaine: A non-violent, victimless crime. The inmates charged with this crime almost universally admitted that they were addicts and needed help.
I fail to see how just locking these people up is more beneficial than putting them in a rehabilitation program. By allowing them to continue to work and be a part of society, they can support their families and have at least some hope when they wake up in the morning that this day will be better than the last.
I do not pretend to know what the solution to a drug addiction is. You almost certainly need a motivator that is stronger than the addiction. But using extreme fear and shame to get them to quit are not the first angles I would take. Putting someone in prison for a drug addiction is a sledge hammer of a remedy. It is an open question in my mind as to whether that remedy solves more problems than it creates. Imagine spending much of your life in a cement and metal cage/hole because you just can't beat the rush in your brain a white powder gives you when you are on the outside. What a sad, miserable existence.
Even if you go your whole life not being able to conquer that rush, why should the government constantly lash you so harshly for it? I can understand the public safety concerns of a person who is "high" and gets behind the wheel of a vehicle or if someone is under the influence and performing work dangerous to others. But most of these charges were not of that nature...
I also found the inmates themselves to be interesting characters, and I enjoyed listening to their stories and studying their mannerisms. While a few were certainly "rotten apples," it did not make them less intriguing. Talking to them was much more engaging to me than doing research on Westlaw or LexisNexis and billing hours.
If the Public Defender's Office could pay me $70,000- $80,000 per year to work there as an attorney, I would jump at the chance. Unfortunately, their salaries are much lower.
We will see where I end up upon graduation, but I know now that the Public Defender's Office is a place reasonably suited to my personality.
Until Next Time,
Nathan Marshburn
In the week prior to the beginning of classes, I worked for 20 hours at the Leon County Public Defender's office. To my surprise, I actually enjoyed it there. My job was to help the office with initial intake interviews, to talk with jail inmates about the pending charges against them and get their side of the story.
As the supervising attorney told me, dealing with the clients is about 75% of what attorneys in that office do. The intake interviews would give me a good feel for the nature of the job. If I did not like the face to face contact, he said, then perhaps work as a prosecutor would be more appropriate.
The technology to conduct the interviews was impressive- at least to me. I did not have to actually visit the jail. Instead, a small camera set on top of the computer monitor at my desk. I called the jail and identified the inmate with whom I needed to speak. The jail sent the inmate to one of several communication pods, labeled A through M. Each pod was equipped with a camera, monitor and telephone, and I could access any of the pods on my computer. When the inmate came into the pod and picked up the phone, I could see and hear him and he could see and hear me.
After about 20 hours of doing these interviews, I realized again how socially liberal I can be at times. I began to think that our criminal justice system needs serious revamping. Many of these inmates were locked up for felony possession of cocaine: A non-violent, victimless crime. The inmates charged with this crime almost universally admitted that they were addicts and needed help.
I fail to see how just locking these people up is more beneficial than putting them in a rehabilitation program. By allowing them to continue to work and be a part of society, they can support their families and have at least some hope when they wake up in the morning that this day will be better than the last.
I do not pretend to know what the solution to a drug addiction is. You almost certainly need a motivator that is stronger than the addiction. But using extreme fear and shame to get them to quit are not the first angles I would take. Putting someone in prison for a drug addiction is a sledge hammer of a remedy. It is an open question in my mind as to whether that remedy solves more problems than it creates. Imagine spending much of your life in a cement and metal cage/hole because you just can't beat the rush in your brain a white powder gives you when you are on the outside. What a sad, miserable existence.
Even if you go your whole life not being able to conquer that rush, why should the government constantly lash you so harshly for it? I can understand the public safety concerns of a person who is "high" and gets behind the wheel of a vehicle or if someone is under the influence and performing work dangerous to others. But most of these charges were not of that nature...
I also found the inmates themselves to be interesting characters, and I enjoyed listening to their stories and studying their mannerisms. While a few were certainly "rotten apples," it did not make them less intriguing. Talking to them was much more engaging to me than doing research on Westlaw or LexisNexis and billing hours.
If the Public Defender's Office could pay me $70,000- $80,000 per year to work there as an attorney, I would jump at the chance. Unfortunately, their salaries are much lower.
We will see where I end up upon graduation, but I know now that the Public Defender's Office is a place reasonably suited to my personality.
Until Next Time,
Nathan Marshburn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)