Spent all weekend and all day yesterday working, making Philadelphia safe for democracy, with nothing but a low-powered, only somewhat smartphone keeping me in touch with the world.
What did I miss, other than a plane crash in the French Alps?
Showing posts with label getting paid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label getting paid. Show all posts
25 March 2015
05 March 2015
2011 law grad running for judge in Lehigh Valley
That is some ego, right there (also, one of so many, many reasons why judges should not be elected):
Her website is vague on her biographical details. It's not inaccurate or deceptive or even necessarily incomplete. But it leaves out details. It doesn't state when she finished law school. It doesn't state that she ever had a clerkship or worked with a firm with any prestige. Instead, it says that she "[worked] for other Lehigh Valley law firms for a number of years" until she hung her own shingle in 2013. So . . . she picked up work here and there for two years (two being "a number") before scraping together enough cash to open up shop in some class B office space in Allentown.
Don't get me wrong. This is fine and it's not hugely different from my own experience. But does her four-year career track qualify her to be a judge?
Not sure if this candidacy is primarily an indicator of the need for merit selection in Pennsylvania, or an indicator of the glut in the market for lawyers. (Insert whynotboth.jpg here.) She never would have made it past a real screening committee if Pennsylvania had a real, merit-based process for putting qualified people on the bench. And there's an actual, real chance she'll be seated if she simply gets a good position on the ballot. With four years' experience out from a school that did not have a stellar first-time pass rate on the bar exam in 2011 (PDF).
But then, in 2011, Pennsylvania added 1,684 newly qualified lawyers to its already over-populated bar. If Kurecian draws a lucky ballot position, she could be getting herself a steadier paycheck than quite a few others in her cohort. Good for her.
A 28-year-old Lower Saucon Township lawyer will challenge incumbent David Tidd for his position as district judge.The incumbent has been on the bench for about 6 years, which is longer than Kurecian has been practicing law. And Kurecian hasn't been at it even that long. The disciplinary board's website is down, so I can't check a primary source; but good old Avvo indicates she got her Pennsylvania license in 2011. That squares with her age of 28 and her Facebook birthday in May, 1986: on a traditional track she would have finished undergrad at 21 (2007) and law school at 24 (2011).
[ ... ]
[Amanda] Kurecian graduated from Bethlehem Catholic High School, Lehigh University and Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law, according to her release. She now works as a divorce attorney at her own practice in Allentown, according to her firm's website. The Republican said she plans to cross-file for the race.
[Incumbent Judge David] Tidd, a bankruptcy court attorney, was first elected district judge in 2009. He plans to seek a second term.
Her website is vague on her biographical details. It's not inaccurate or deceptive or even necessarily incomplete. But it leaves out details. It doesn't state when she finished law school. It doesn't state that she ever had a clerkship or worked with a firm with any prestige. Instead, it says that she "[worked] for other Lehigh Valley law firms for a number of years" until she hung her own shingle in 2013. So . . . she picked up work here and there for two years (two being "a number") before scraping together enough cash to open up shop in some class B office space in Allentown.
Don't get me wrong. This is fine and it's not hugely different from my own experience. But does her four-year career track qualify her to be a judge?
Not sure if this candidacy is primarily an indicator of the need for merit selection in Pennsylvania, or an indicator of the glut in the market for lawyers. (Insert whynotboth.jpg here.) She never would have made it past a real screening committee if Pennsylvania had a real, merit-based process for putting qualified people on the bench. And there's an actual, real chance she'll be seated if she simply gets a good position on the ballot. With four years' experience out from a school that did not have a stellar first-time pass rate on the bar exam in 2011 (PDF).
But then, in 2011, Pennsylvania added 1,684 newly qualified lawyers to its already over-populated bar. If Kurecian draws a lucky ballot position, she could be getting herself a steadier paycheck than quite a few others in her cohort. Good for her.
26 February 2015
Poking around a white supremacist constitution so you don't have to
Following some bouncing links the other day (seriously, don't ask), I stumbled across the "Constitution" of the "Northwest American Republic," a proposed white supremacist nation seeking to establish itself somewhere in Cascadia and currently operating out of, I believe, Port Orchard, Washington. The draft constitution's bill of rights contains the expected conservative wackadoo provisions ("The right to life of unborn children, beginning at conception, shall be respected and enforced by the state"; "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be qualified or restricted by any requirement of licensing, registration, fee, taxation, restriction on transportation, or other such impediment"), a couple of unexpectedly progressive provisions ("All residents and citizens of the Republic shall have the right to adequate and life-preserving medical care, free of charge"; "All citizens and residents of the Republic shall enjoy the right, free of charge, to all such education, technical training, vocational training, and instruction as shall be within their innate personal capacity to understand, assimilate, and apply in life"), and at least one hilairiously qualified provision ("All residents and citizens of the Republic shall enjoy the right to complete freedom of speech, freedom of artistic and creative expression, and freedom of the press. (This article shall not be construed as limiting or interdicting the right of the government of the Republic or competent local authority to control or prohibit expressions of obscenity and/or pornography.)").
Though of course I don't agree with the understood policy behind this particular enumeration of rights, I get it. The drafters are looking to promote education among the populace and to keep people non-broke and healthy, both for the better functioning of the republic. They also want everyone to have as many guns as possible and ban abortions and likely a lot of forms of contraception as well, because they're conservative wackadoos. And they want people to be able to say the n-word but not the f-bomb, because they're racist conservative wackadoos.
Now, I'm a lawyer, so I poked around the constitution's sections relating to lawyering and the judiciary. Interestingly, strangely, and/or bizarrely, the constitution refers to a judiciary but there's no actual judicial branch of the national government. That is, there are executive and legislative branches of the government, but no third-arm judicial check on them. The policy here is stated clearly in the constitution itself: they don't dig so-called judicial activism ("The courts and judiciary shall have no governmental or policy-making role whatsoever within the State; these powers are reserved to the legislative and executive branches"). Again, policy I don't agree with, but I understand the mindset it's coming from.
But then then constitution goes full-on "let's kill all the lawyers":
That distraction aside, the constitution goes further elsewhere as well:
How do they expect to fill their judges' benches? I mean, banning compensation for lawyers is a disincentive to become a lawyer. Or even if you do become a lawyer, then it's a disincentive to become an experienced lawyer. And isn't it best to have judges who come from the ranks of experienced trial lawyers?
The constitution appears to restrict the courts to trial-level tribunals. Is there no appeal system? Does this constitution de-activist the courts to such a degree that it gives a magistrate the final decision power of a court of last resort?
At least the constitution doesn't abolish the writ of habeas corpus.
Finally, most importantly, and the real reason for why we need to adopt the Northwest Front's constitution as America's new, improved constitution, and I mean truly above all else, is that it enshrines dueling as a civil right for male residents and citizens:
Though of course I don't agree with the understood policy behind this particular enumeration of rights, I get it. The drafters are looking to promote education among the populace and to keep people non-broke and healthy, both for the better functioning of the republic. They also want everyone to have as many guns as possible and ban abortions and likely a lot of forms of contraception as well, because they're conservative wackadoos. And they want people to be able to say the n-word but not the f-bomb, because they're racist conservative wackadoos.
Now, I'm a lawyer, so I poked around the constitution's sections relating to lawyering and the judiciary. Interestingly, strangely, and/or bizarrely, the constitution refers to a judiciary but there's no actual judicial branch of the national government. That is, there are executive and legislative branches of the government, but no third-arm judicial check on them. The policy here is stated clearly in the constitution itself: they don't dig so-called judicial activism ("The courts and judiciary shall have no governmental or policy-making role whatsoever within the State; these powers are reserved to the legislative and executive branches"). Again, policy I don't agree with, but I understand the mindset it's coming from.
But then then constitution goes full-on "let's kill all the lawyers":
No resident, citizen, or other person charged with a criminal offense before the courts of the Republic shall be denied the right to counsel and advocate of his choice, provided such counsel or advocate shall accept no fee, reward, emolument in money or kind, property or thing of value, officially or unofficially, for the performance of such function, and shall affirm such on oath before the commencement of trial or other proceeding.Emolument is a term that means simply "payment" but sounds classy because it's used in the U.S. Constitution and also that sneaky Hillary "Benghazi Vince Foster Whitewater" Clinton has run afoul of the Emoluments Clause not once but twice. Twice! More like BENGHOLUMENTS, amirite?
That distraction aside, the constitution goes further elsewhere as well:
No citizen or resident of the Northwest American Republic may charge or accept any monetary emolument, fee, gift, or anything of value for performing any service connected with law, legal processes, trial or litigation, or for speaking in defense of a defendant in any legal case.I'm killin' myself here trying to understand the policy behind this provision. Lawyers can't get paid? For any lawyering work? I mean, never mind how this mechanism goes beyond merely discouraging "frivolous" lawsuits and effectively shuts down the courts as a meaningful institution. But no paying for a will, a power of attorney, a business transaction? No hiring someone to do some sabre-rattling for you when your insurance company balks at paying out a claim? How about notarizing documents? Isn't notarizing a "service connected with law"?
How do they expect to fill their judges' benches? I mean, banning compensation for lawyers is a disincentive to become a lawyer. Or even if you do become a lawyer, then it's a disincentive to become an experienced lawyer. And isn't it best to have judges who come from the ranks of experienced trial lawyers?
The constitution appears to restrict the courts to trial-level tribunals. Is there no appeal system? Does this constitution de-activist the courts to such a degree that it gives a magistrate the final decision power of a court of last resort?
At least the constitution doesn't abolish the writ of habeas corpus.
Finally, most importantly, and the real reason for why we need to adopt the Northwest Front's constitution as America's new, improved constitution, and I mean truly above all else, is that it enshrines dueling as a civil right for male residents and citizens:
In order to instill and maintain the highest standards of personal courtesy, deliberation, maturity, integrity and courage in the manhood of the Republic, the State President in his capacity as chief magistrate shall establish and supervise a National Honor Court. The said body shall in turn create and enforce all necessary regulations, procedures, and protocols for the resolution of personal differences between individual male residents and citizens of the Republic, up to and including private combat by mutual consent, in accordance with the ancient and historic traditions and practices of the European family of nations.Ancient and historic! Also Spielbergian:
06 February 2015
Charging what I'm worth
Man, there's nothing like hearing, "Oh, yeah, listen, that's a little more than I was expecting to have to pay" when you quote your billing rate to someone whose own rate probably exceeds three times yours.
Christ on a cracker.
Not sure if it was that my degree is from a "bottom 90%" law school, or that my law license is only 5 years old. Or maybe it's something else -- I do see that the nature of the work that was sent to me was more copyediting than lawyering, but I'm a lawyer, so I charge a lawyering rate for my work.
Period.
If you want to pay legal assistant rates, then hire a legal assistant, not a lawyer. I'm actually not that expensive, as far as lawyers go. I know what local BigLaw attorneys make, attorneys who graduated the same year or so that I did. I charge less than that, because, hey, I don't keep myself in Armani suits and a Class A office space. We all got bills to pay, though, and we're all allowed to charge what we're worth.
Christ on a cracker.
Not sure if it was that my degree is from a "bottom 90%" law school, or that my law license is only 5 years old. Or maybe it's something else -- I do see that the nature of the work that was sent to me was more copyediting than lawyering, but I'm a lawyer, so I charge a lawyering rate for my work.
Period.
If you want to pay legal assistant rates, then hire a legal assistant, not a lawyer. I'm actually not that expensive, as far as lawyers go. I know what local BigLaw attorneys make, attorneys who graduated the same year or so that I did. I charge less than that, because, hey, I don't keep myself in Armani suits and a Class A office space. We all got bills to pay, though, and we're all allowed to charge what we're worth.
30 January 2015
The sound of one invisible hand clapping in Georgia
Georgia implemented a pile of right-to-work, anti-immigrant legislation, and now the invisible hand is smacking employers:
The work here can be physically demanding. Not a lot of people want to do it -- even though the average wage here is $16 per hour plus benefits.I'm no economist, but I do understand that supply 'n' demand works both ways. An employer who just can't get good help these days is an employer who's not paying wages that are high enough for good help. Sixteen an hour plus benefits is not a high wage -- you're looking to take home only some $11 or $12 after taxes. And it'll disqualify you from food stamps and other benefits.
Tom Hensley, the company president, says Fieldale Farms hires just about anyone who can pass a drug test.
"We hire 100 people a week. Because we have 100 people who quit every week, out of 5,000 employees," he says. "We're constantly short."
"So we've had to hire middle-aged Americans who have not been used to working in an industrial facility and they have difficulty keeping up with the machines. So it's not the same labor force that we had 10 years ago," Hensley says.So slow down the machines and pay the workers a respectful wage, a wage that "middle-aged" people, who probably have dependents at home as well, can actually live on.
25 October 2014
Unsustainable temp job
I am running on adrenaline and coffee all week at this terrible temp job, leaving me exhausted and cranky evenings and weekends. This nonsense would have been a lot easier 20 years ago. Just 2 more weeks. Good thing the paycheck will be too miserly to miss.
18 October 2014
More news than I need, less work than I need
I got nothin' on the news of the last six-plus months that other people haven't spoken about more completely, eloquently, bitingly, or dissentingly. (I'm liking Raw Story and the BBC lately; I feel actively dumber whenever I look at CNN nowadays.) Spring and summer kept me busy, just like everyone else, I'm sure. This autumn has found me temping in the legal department of a local non-profit organization.
All I'll say on that is that all happy non-profits are alike; every unhappy non-profit is unhappy in its own way.
I've worked very closely with some half-dozen non-profits over the years, whether as employee, long-term volunteer, or board member. To a one, they all had some kind of dysfunction. Even in one that didn't appear to have a dysfunction, there was a serious flaw: the strong, smart, and talented executive director, who worked well with everyone and brought in tons of cash, didn't have a realistic succession plan. So even though work was always very on-mission and more often than not successful, and even though the coffers were full and employees fairly paid, what will happen when the E.D. is no longer in place, either by plan or after a sudden, unexpected (and hopefully not tragic) departure?
To be clear and to keep my current workplace anonymous, this is not the pattern in the organization where I'm working right now. In fact, this office is far more dysfunctional, and in more serious ways. I say as non-profit governance expert.
Anyhow, the temp gig will wrap up sometime next month, leaving my dance card open for another organization that needs a Monday morning quarterback in the salt mines, to mix metaphors. Excelsior.
All I'll say on that is that all happy non-profits are alike; every unhappy non-profit is unhappy in its own way.
I've worked very closely with some half-dozen non-profits over the years, whether as employee, long-term volunteer, or board member. To a one, they all had some kind of dysfunction. Even in one that didn't appear to have a dysfunction, there was a serious flaw: the strong, smart, and talented executive director, who worked well with everyone and brought in tons of cash, didn't have a realistic succession plan. So even though work was always very on-mission and more often than not successful, and even though the coffers were full and employees fairly paid, what will happen when the E.D. is no longer in place, either by plan or after a sudden, unexpected (and hopefully not tragic) departure?
To be clear and to keep my current workplace anonymous, this is not the pattern in the organization where I'm working right now. In fact, this office is far more dysfunctional, and in more serious ways. I say as non-profit governance expert.
Anyhow, the temp gig will wrap up sometime next month, leaving my dance card open for another organization that needs a Monday morning quarterback in the salt mines, to mix metaphors. Excelsior.
01 February 2012
Stats on looking for work
My job application-to-interview ratio seems to be about 6:1. I'm on track to apply for 72 jobs this year and interview for 6.
By "apply" I mean carefully select positions that interest me, that I appear qualified for, that I reasonably believe I have a good chance of getting, and that I make a good-faith effort to tweak my resume and compose a solid cover letter for. I don't mean shotgunning: shotgunning my resume out to all the lawyering positions I see on craigslist takes away time from my law practice. Which has at least been paying my office rent for a few months now.
Stats from this week's job interview: There were 3 interviewees (including myself), and it'll be about 4 weeks before they make their hiring decision.
By "apply" I mean carefully select positions that interest me, that I appear qualified for, that I reasonably believe I have a good chance of getting, and that I make a good-faith effort to tweak my resume and compose a solid cover letter for. I don't mean shotgunning: shotgunning my resume out to all the lawyering positions I see on craigslist takes away time from my law practice. Which has at least been paying my office rent for a few months now.
Stats from this week's job interview: There were 3 interviewees (including myself), and it'll be about 4 weeks before they make their hiring decision.
25 October 2011
Still underemployed
Still stumbling along, seriously underemployed. Not making my overhead this month, and believe me, my overhead is pretty low already. Spending time when I can in free seminars and panels covering my preferred areas of practice.
Interviewed for a professional position at a prestigious local university back in August. Never heard back, and only learned that they selected another candidate when I logged into the school's job search site. Really? I expect that from a law firm or legal recruiter or fast-food restaurant chain, but chrissakes, not for this level of work.
You know how you look at a short document or a page of a newspaper for so long that you no longer really see what you're reading, the words become meaningless, and you start seeing the complementary colors of the text? I'm like that with my resumé at this point.
Interviewed for a professional position at a prestigious local university back in August. Never heard back, and only learned that they selected another candidate when I logged into the school's job search site. Really? I expect that from a law firm or legal recruiter or fast-food restaurant chain, but chrissakes, not for this level of work.
You know how you look at a short document or a page of a newspaper for so long that you no longer really see what you're reading, the words become meaningless, and you start seeing the complementary colors of the text? I'm like that with my resumé at this point.
17 October 2011
Back to work and bills after a weekend conference
Plowing through my to-do list after a 3-day conference, including following up with a potential client I should have naggedfollowed up with last week to see if they'll hire me (maybe they don't want to since I'm in only my second year of practice), signing up a client interview for later this week, and sending some free-information-but-not-legal-advice to an art student with a couple of copyright and invasion of privacy queries.
I met a bunch of art students at a meeting recently. One of the student's classmates came up to me after the meeting and told me that he planned to go to law school so that he could finance his art projects on his attorney's salary. I asked him to think about how he would create his art when he's starting from a position of $150,000 in law school loan debt but no job (i.e., plenty of time but no money to make his art with), or $150,000 in law school loans and a job where he's billing 2,000 hours per year (i.e., plenty of money if he keeps his lifestyle reasonable, but no time to make his art in).
And then I told him, simply, not to go to law school.
Anyway, speaking of scratch, I'm about halfway to making my overhead costs this month. But, hey, everybody! How's that new iPhone working for you?
I met a bunch of art students at a meeting recently. One of the student's classmates came up to me after the meeting and told me that he planned to go to law school so that he could finance his art projects on his attorney's salary. I asked him to think about how he would create his art when he's starting from a position of $150,000 in law school loan debt but no job (i.e., plenty of time but no money to make his art with), or $150,000 in law school loans and a job where he's billing 2,000 hours per year (i.e., plenty of money if he keeps his lifestyle reasonable, but no time to make his art in).
And then I told him, simply, not to go to law school.
Anyway, speaking of scratch, I'm about halfway to making my overhead costs this month. But, hey, everybody! How's that new iPhone working for you?
26 September 2011
I love the smell of artificial deadlines in the morning
I do a lot of pro bono work, for a lot of reasons. I have to keep myself busy, so I don't leave the office feeling that I've done nothing but dick around on the Internet all day long. I need to continue training myself, so I do what I like to call self-CLE: any work product I generate for a pro bono client goes right into my personal library of forms I can adapt for a paying client later on. And of course it's good for networking, a term I don't like but can't very well ignore.
But to get work done for non-paying clients -- it's all well and good to call them pro bono, but at the end of the month they've done nothing for my bottom line, at best, and taken potential paid hours away from me, at worst -- I have to be disciplined. This week I've given myself until Wednesday to generate the first draft of by-laws for a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization where I serve on the board, which I'll chuck to the other lawyer on the board for revisions and input. In the end, I'll add another document to my library, and we'll both add another item to our resumés. The ABA advises newer lawyers against serving on non-profit boards, but fuck the ABA. They're not on the side of solo practitioners or small firms, anyway, especially those of us who graduated in the "bottom 90%" of our classes at a "bottom 90%" school.
Anyway, my ultimate deadline, if I have one, which I don't because nobody is paying me to do this work, would be the end of my term of service on this board. I guess. That doesn't come around for a few more months. But in the meantime, and while I'm still underemployed for paying work, I'm stuck making busy work for myself. Once I'm done my morning news reading.
What do you do when you've finished your paying work? Or the other side of the coin, do you wish you could do some lawyering work for a non-profit company or public-interest organization? Please comment. Thanks!
But to get work done for non-paying clients -- it's all well and good to call them pro bono, but at the end of the month they've done nothing for my bottom line, at best, and taken potential paid hours away from me, at worst -- I have to be disciplined. This week I've given myself until Wednesday to generate the first draft of by-laws for a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization where I serve on the board, which I'll chuck to the other lawyer on the board for revisions and input. In the end, I'll add another document to my library, and we'll both add another item to our resumés. The ABA advises newer lawyers against serving on non-profit boards, but fuck the ABA. They're not on the side of solo practitioners or small firms, anyway, especially those of us who graduated in the "bottom 90%" of our classes at a "bottom 90%" school.
Anyway, my ultimate deadline, if I have one, which I don't because nobody is paying me to do this work, would be the end of my term of service on this board. I guess. That doesn't come around for a few more months. But in the meantime, and while I'm still underemployed for paying work, I'm stuck making busy work for myself. Once I'm done my morning news reading.
What do you do when you've finished your paying work? Or the other side of the coin, do you wish you could do some lawyering work for a non-profit company or public-interest organization? Please comment. Thanks!
23 September 2011
Mentorship? From my law office? It's more likely than I think
Number of paid hours worked this week: 0.8
Number of pro bono hours worked this week: 5.0
Number of suits worn this week: 3.0
Gah.
Two of these pro bono hours included an "informational interview" -- right out of What Color is Your Parachute? -- with a couple of 2L's from a local law school. I guess I'm flattered that the career office (I presume) sent them my way, but I didn't have much encouragement for them. My two main points were, one, if you want to open up your own law office, do you have experience running a business? Do you really understand that you have to make enough money to meet your monthly overhead before you can cut yourself a check? Do you know what's included in "overhead"? [1] Do you know that every three months you'll have to drop everything and do your taxes? And two, why are you still in law school? Why haven't you dropped out, cut your losses, and stopped the hemorrhaging by getting some kind of work instead? 'Cause, man, when I think of the opportunity cost of not working for the three years I was in law school, and the underemployment I'm dealing with now, the hit to my personal retirement funds and Social Security is kind of staggering.
[1] At the very least, Internet, phone, professional malpractice insurance, business cards, professional clothing, CLEs and licensure, bar membership(s), and some kind of access to LEXIS/Westlaw. (Some of these items are yearly costs. They're still monthly overhead. Divide by 12.) Add rent if you don't want to work at home, CPA fees if you don't want to do your own taxes (and arguably you shouldn't), and the cost of advertising and attending networking opportunities for marketing purposes. Never mind hiring a secretary to push paper for you.
Number of pro bono hours worked this week: 5.0
Number of suits worn this week: 3.0
Gah.
Two of these pro bono hours included an "informational interview" -- right out of What Color is Your Parachute? -- with a couple of 2L's from a local law school. I guess I'm flattered that the career office (I presume) sent them my way, but I didn't have much encouragement for them. My two main points were, one, if you want to open up your own law office, do you have experience running a business? Do you really understand that you have to make enough money to meet your monthly overhead before you can cut yourself a check? Do you know what's included in "overhead"? [1] Do you know that every three months you'll have to drop everything and do your taxes? And two, why are you still in law school? Why haven't you dropped out, cut your losses, and stopped the hemorrhaging by getting some kind of work instead? 'Cause, man, when I think of the opportunity cost of not working for the three years I was in law school, and the underemployment I'm dealing with now, the hit to my personal retirement funds and Social Security is kind of staggering.
[1] At the very least, Internet, phone, professional malpractice insurance, business cards, professional clothing, CLEs and licensure, bar membership(s), and some kind of access to LEXIS/Westlaw. (Some of these items are yearly costs. They're still monthly overhead. Divide by 12.) Add rent if you don't want to work at home, CPA fees if you don't want to do your own taxes (and arguably you shouldn't), and the cost of advertising and attending networking opportunities for marketing purposes. Never mind hiring a secretary to push paper for you.
22 September 2011
Markets plunge! And this affects me how, again?
Not having a decent, regular income is exhausting. Every single month I've been running out of money, for so many months I'm not even sure how long it's been since I had a cushion in my checking account. (Never mind that I had to give up the emergency funds in a money market account sometime in 2007 or so, because I couldn't keep the minimum balance the bank required before it would charge fees.) I would contribute to the economy if someone would kindly contribute to my own, first, and hire me to do some work for them.
I believe that's how the system works. Having been out of it, for all intents and purposes, since 2006, I may be a little unclear on the concept.
In other news, scientists in England may have come up with data that throws out the theory that dark matter comprises a fifth of the universe, while researchers at CERN believe they've found neutrinos traveling faster than light.
At least science gets funding in some other countries.
I believe that's how the system works. Having been out of it, for all intents and purposes, since 2006, I may be a little unclear on the concept.
In other news, scientists in England may have come up with data that throws out the theory that dark matter comprises a fifth of the universe, while researchers at CERN believe they've found neutrinos traveling faster than light.
At least science gets funding in some other countries.
20 June 2011
The job interview I didn't do
I just canceled an interview for a job in Harrisburg. There was more than one reason. One, I would be on the train 20 hours every week. Even if I bought a netbook with my first paycheck or two, I don't think they'd be productive hours, considering how early and late I'd be on the train in order to be physically in Harrisburg during business hours.
Two, the starting salary was so low that I don't even want to admit what it was. The pay was low because it was a paper-pushing job that didn't require a J.D. or law license. The job description listed the types of stultifying tasks you'd expect to see for a job at that level of pay. Fuck the benefits when it's paperwork review and 20 hours a week on the train for a job where the governor has targeted the union to cut its pay anyway.
Three, no option for telecommuting. I specifically asked if I could work from Philly one or two days per week, but no deal. I conclude that the job is quite literally paper-pushing. The job description included management-level tasks, but at that pay rate and with a daily in-person attendance requirement, it can't have been more than a single-digit percentage of the amount of work.
Nothing to do but to keep my chin up and not take this shit personally.
Two, the starting salary was so low that I don't even want to admit what it was. The pay was low because it was a paper-pushing job that didn't require a J.D. or law license. The job description listed the types of stultifying tasks you'd expect to see for a job at that level of pay. Fuck the benefits when it's paperwork review and 20 hours a week on the train for a job where the governor has targeted the union to cut its pay anyway.
Three, no option for telecommuting. I specifically asked if I could work from Philly one or two days per week, but no deal. I conclude that the job is quite literally paper-pushing. The job description included management-level tasks, but at that pay rate and with a daily in-person attendance requirement, it can't have been more than a single-digit percentage of the amount of work.
Nothing to do but to keep my chin up and not take this shit personally.
11 January 2010
Another unpaid gig
I've been invited to be a member of the board of a small local arts organization. While I guess every networking opportunity is a good networking opportunity, I sure do wish I could find steady, paying work.
Maybe I can condition the performance of my board participation duties on a quarter-page ad in the program of every show the organization puts on.
Maybe I can condition the performance of my board participation duties on a quarter-page ad in the program of every show the organization puts on.
12 November 2009
ABA wants to know your views on document review offshoring
Take a minute or two to fill out a brief survey and tell the American Bar Association exactly how you feel about offshoring American legal work to lower-paid workers in other countries. I covered the topic here at the end of September:
On the one hand it's accrediting new law schools left and right, generating literally thousands of new law grads every year that weren't flooding the marketplace just 5 and 10 years ago. Yay! More lawyers, more lawyering work, more big fees, and more big profits! Right? Well, wrong -- when the work that new law grads tend to do, namely, low-level document review, is now being outsourced, with the shiny stamp of ABA approval.
28 October 2009
The Philadelphia Bar Association is not serious about helping underemployed attorneys
From today's e-mail:
If the Philadelphia Bar Association were truly interested in reducing un- and underemployment among area lawyers, they would organize job fairs to get firms and attorneys to meet and hire one another. Or put up some kind of online legal services delivery clearinghouse where potential clients could find lawyers and hire them. Or sponsor events where solo practitioners with few or even no clients in their books could meet and explore putting together their own firms or legal services organizations so that underserved constituencies could hire them. Instead, the PBA offers this course, which seeks to
It's every lawyer for herself, I think. Best to go out on your own (or find a small group of pals with skills in complementary areas of practice), underbid the firms, and use that Jenkins membership of yours for all the LexisNexis access it can get you.
Training Program for AttorneysHoly mother of christ, 800 clams to teach newly laid-off attorneys and new graduates how to hand out business cards, network, and hustle for new clients and gigs?
Who Need to Develop New Business
Presented by the Training Resource Group and the Philadelphia Bar Association
[ ... ]
Fee: The cost is $795 per participant which includes four training sessions, one individual coaching session and materials.
If the Philadelphia Bar Association were truly interested in reducing un- and underemployment among area lawyers, they would organize job fairs to get firms and attorneys to meet and hire one another. Or put up some kind of online legal services delivery clearinghouse where potential clients could find lawyers and hire them. Or sponsor events where solo practitioners with few or even no clients in their books could meet and explore putting together their own firms or legal services organizations so that underserved constituencies could hire them. Instead, the PBA offers this course, which seeks to
[d]evelop and implement a cost effective training program targeted at introducing business development skills to attorneys. After completing the program, participants will have the mindset, skills, and confidence to create an individual business development plan, successfully network and create strategic partnerships, better cross-sell current clients and build account relationships at a higher level. The program will focus on teaching tactics and techniques that will help participants to develop new opportunities and turn those opportunities into new clients.Sounds like "how to bill your dwindling client base more and more money, even as you're losing them because they can't afford you any more" and "how to get those clients to refer you, at your increased rates, to more clients" and "how to make other attorneys think these tactics are actually finding you work" to me.
Friday, Dec. 4Secrets? It's a $200 secret (one quarter of the course) to toss your pals some e-mail suggesting that you pool your resources and share an office or put a firm together?
Building a Stronger Network
Learn the secrets to participating in, or founding, a successful peer group, accountability group or referral group.
Friday, Nov. 20What's an event where it's appropriate to hand someone a business card? Here, I'll save you another $200. YES: A cocktail party or gallery opening; a summer barbecue; an alumni event for any school you've attended; the holiday party at your partner's work. NO: A funeral; a transaction involving controlled substances; an evening at the Pleasure Garden (NSFW).
The Basics of Networking and Building a Memorable 30-Second Commercial
Learn the basics of networking. Develop a plan that will help you choose appropriate events to attend how to approach each event, and tips for turning the events into business contacts.
It's every lawyer for herself, I think. Best to go out on your own (or find a small group of pals with skills in complementary areas of practice), underbid the firms, and use that Jenkins membership of yours for all the LexisNexis access it can get you.
28 September 2009
The ABA is enabling the legal industry's downfall, but it still won't buy me a drink
So I've been reading a few anti-ABA blogs written by lawyers lately. Some of them are written by relatively recent law school grads who are failing to make ends meet, between their crushing law-school debt and the extremely low-paying, temporary contract document-review jobs that they feel forced to take. Others are written by long-time associates who never made partner -- whether from lack of skill and drive, or from lack of cash to buy into an equity partnership.
The articles are interesting, but unfortunately in a trainwreck kind of way. As a rule they're fantastically bitter, and for good reason. Many of the authors (or their informants) work in filthy, airless, roach-infested cubicles in the basements of prestigious BigLaw firms, mostly in New York, doing mind-numbing document review. They work 50 or 70 hours per week for ever decreasing fees, like $28/hr before taxes, and with no benefits. The work pays so low because there's been a trend for BigLaw firms to outsource this kind of document review to India, with the blessing of the ABA, and because there is a lot of competition from new law grads.
Outsourcing low-level document review tasks can be cost-effective, and it can make running a law firm, which is a very expensive type of business to run, more profitable. You could even say that law firms are late to get on the off-shore bandwagon, considering how every other industry in America, from manufacturing to customer service, has been doing it for years. So it's really not surprising that the ABA, a mouthpiece for BigLaw and a group very interested in preserving the status quo of big law firms charging big fees and making big profits, has given 2 thumbs up to shipping document review jobs overseas.
But the ABA is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand it's accrediting new law schools left and right, generating literally thousands of new law grads every year that weren't flooding the marketplace just 5 and 10 years ago. Yay! More lawyers, more lawyering work, more big fees, and more big profits! Right? Well, wrong -- when the work that new law grads tend to do, namely, low-level document review, is now being outsourced, with the shiny stamp of ABA approval.
The predictable result when the economy tanks and firms lose both clients and lines of credit: layoffs, salary cuts, new hire deferrals, and rescinded offers to the class of 2009. It's not completely the ABA's fault, as some of the anti-ABA bloggers insist; but the ABA's position isn't helping. The ABA hasn't changed its offshoring policy, though it's been printing on its website and in its monthly magazine nice articles about spunky attorneys thinking outside the box and pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and getting fabulously remunerative, non-lawyering jobs.
Some individuals at firms are seeing the writing on the wall. The chair of K&L Gates seems horrified to see that the economy appears to be driving more and more kids into law school lately, because "[w]e will be pouring tens of thousands of young people into a market that I suspect is not going to be able to absorb them at the remuneration levels that would have justified them taking on that debt" of 6 figures that law school will almost certainly leave them with.
Which makes me wonder if something isn't going to give soon. Shouldn't the invisible hand drive down law school prices one of these days? If there is a glut of law schools, and grads can't get decent-paying lawyering jobs afterward because they have a useless 4-year liberal arts degree, a law degree from a non-prestigious law school, and no life nor job experience because they're still in their early 20s -- sounds like a bubble to me.
I feel really bad for the low-paid contract document review lawyers. And I feel a heck of a lot of resentment that I've been getting zero help from my own law school's career office (though I wouldn't want to be in their position . . . except that they're getting paychecks). But mostly I feel sick and angry when I see people complaining about any aspect of their jobs right now, or about their lack of job when they have a partner at home helping out, and my tongue is starting to hurt from biting it so hard.
The articles are interesting, but unfortunately in a trainwreck kind of way. As a rule they're fantastically bitter, and for good reason. Many of the authors (or their informants) work in filthy, airless, roach-infested cubicles in the basements of prestigious BigLaw firms, mostly in New York, doing mind-numbing document review. They work 50 or 70 hours per week for ever decreasing fees, like $28/hr before taxes, and with no benefits. The work pays so low because there's been a trend for BigLaw firms to outsource this kind of document review to India, with the blessing of the ABA, and because there is a lot of competition from new law grads.
Outsourcing low-level document review tasks can be cost-effective, and it can make running a law firm, which is a very expensive type of business to run, more profitable. You could even say that law firms are late to get on the off-shore bandwagon, considering how every other industry in America, from manufacturing to customer service, has been doing it for years. So it's really not surprising that the ABA, a mouthpiece for BigLaw and a group very interested in preserving the status quo of big law firms charging big fees and making big profits, has given 2 thumbs up to shipping document review jobs overseas.
But the ABA is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand it's accrediting new law schools left and right, generating literally thousands of new law grads every year that weren't flooding the marketplace just 5 and 10 years ago. Yay! More lawyers, more lawyering work, more big fees, and more big profits! Right? Well, wrong -- when the work that new law grads tend to do, namely, low-level document review, is now being outsourced, with the shiny stamp of ABA approval.
The predictable result when the economy tanks and firms lose both clients and lines of credit: layoffs, salary cuts, new hire deferrals, and rescinded offers to the class of 2009. It's not completely the ABA's fault, as some of the anti-ABA bloggers insist; but the ABA's position isn't helping. The ABA hasn't changed its offshoring policy, though it's been printing on its website and in its monthly magazine nice articles about spunky attorneys thinking outside the box and pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and getting fabulously remunerative, non-lawyering jobs.
Some individuals at firms are seeing the writing on the wall. The chair of K&L Gates seems horrified to see that the economy appears to be driving more and more kids into law school lately, because "[w]e will be pouring tens of thousands of young people into a market that I suspect is not going to be able to absorb them at the remuneration levels that would have justified them taking on that debt" of 6 figures that law school will almost certainly leave them with.
Which makes me wonder if something isn't going to give soon. Shouldn't the invisible hand drive down law school prices one of these days? If there is a glut of law schools, and grads can't get decent-paying lawyering jobs afterward because they have a useless 4-year liberal arts degree, a law degree from a non-prestigious law school, and no life nor job experience because they're still in their early 20s -- sounds like a bubble to me.
I feel really bad for the low-paid contract document review lawyers. And I feel a heck of a lot of resentment that I've been getting zero help from my own law school's career office (though I wouldn't want to be in their position . . . except that they're getting paychecks). But mostly I feel sick and angry when I see people complaining about any aspect of their jobs right now, or about their lack of job when they have a partner at home helping out, and my tongue is starting to hurt from biting it so hard.
13 August 2009
Why you should not Facebook at work
Or, at least, you should not add your boss as a friend, then forget and complain about your job:
Via passive-aggressive (and just plain aggressive) notes.
Via passive-aggressive (and just plain aggressive) notes.
28 June 2009
On clothes and dates
It has been not-so-gently suggested to me that I might have more luck getting laid if I would only dress better.
In my defense, it's a lot easier to dress well when one has an income. I haven't had an income for a while, but if I remember correctly income is a situation where you "trade" your "time" and "work" for "currency," which you can then "exchange" for "goods and services" provided by other people. And, in the process, the numbers on your bank statement do not continue to dwindle and go to zero, so long as you "save" more of this "income" than you "exchange" away.
But until I have an income, I'll be making do with ill-fitting jeans, hand-me-down shirts, and D.I.Y. haircuts.
And maybe that's a vicious circle, too -- I'd be more appealing to a potential employer if I had more than 2 suits that fit me, and if the suits I have were better styled and tailored. Let's just say that I'm on a "banana republic" budget right now.
Anyway, I have a long history of dressing badly, and if you think my hair looks crazy now, you didn't know me in the 1980s. Childhood snapshots of my family generally show me wearing pants that are too large, a shirt that is too small, and a hairstyle that looks like a dead muskrat stapled to my scalp. When I was an undergrad, my uniform was jeans, a t-shirt with a tea stain toward the front hem, and a rolled-up bandanna holding my hair back. At least nowadays I know how to use black clothing, spandex, and hair product, and I can blame the pot belly on pregnancy.
Speaking of which, have you actually been shopping for women's clothes lately? What the hell is up with these maternity-looking shirts? Hanger after hanger of them, and hung up all over display windows. Blouses, frilly sleeveless tops, even professional shirts all have extra pleats in the front, I guess to cover up how fat American women are becoming. Folks, I didn't look good in maternity wear when I was pregnant, let alone now. Ugh. It makes me want to go back to wearing jeans, tea-stained t-shirts, and bandannas.
And I think the lack of dates is more due to my abrasive personality, and the fact that I have a kid at home, than my wardrobe, really. But on the off-chance it helps, a few days ago I went out and got some new-to-me summer clothes for myself from the upscale consignment shop down the street. Then I came home and put a slightly greater quantity of clothes in bags to donate to a charity thrift shop.
In my defense, it's a lot easier to dress well when one has an income. I haven't had an income for a while, but if I remember correctly income is a situation where you "trade" your "time" and "work" for "currency," which you can then "exchange" for "goods and services" provided by other people. And, in the process, the numbers on your bank statement do not continue to dwindle and go to zero, so long as you "save" more of this "income" than you "exchange" away.
But until I have an income, I'll be making do with ill-fitting jeans, hand-me-down shirts, and D.I.Y. haircuts.
And maybe that's a vicious circle, too -- I'd be more appealing to a potential employer if I had more than 2 suits that fit me, and if the suits I have were better styled and tailored. Let's just say that I'm on a "banana republic" budget right now.
Anyway, I have a long history of dressing badly, and if you think my hair looks crazy now, you didn't know me in the 1980s. Childhood snapshots of my family generally show me wearing pants that are too large, a shirt that is too small, and a hairstyle that looks like a dead muskrat stapled to my scalp. When I was an undergrad, my uniform was jeans, a t-shirt with a tea stain toward the front hem, and a rolled-up bandanna holding my hair back. At least nowadays I know how to use black clothing, spandex, and hair product, and I can blame the pot belly on pregnancy.
Speaking of which, have you actually been shopping for women's clothes lately? What the hell is up with these maternity-looking shirts? Hanger after hanger of them, and hung up all over display windows. Blouses, frilly sleeveless tops, even professional shirts all have extra pleats in the front, I guess to cover up how fat American women are becoming. Folks, I didn't look good in maternity wear when I was pregnant, let alone now. Ugh. It makes me want to go back to wearing jeans, tea-stained t-shirts, and bandannas.
And I think the lack of dates is more due to my abrasive personality, and the fact that I have a kid at home, than my wardrobe, really. But on the off-chance it helps, a few days ago I went out and got some new-to-me summer clothes for myself from the upscale consignment shop down the street. Then I came home and put a slightly greater quantity of clothes in bags to donate to a charity thrift shop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
