"Print legal research has the advantage of an imposed conceptual framework of source materials and subject classification. It takes practice and time to learn how the system works, but once learned provides comprehensive research methodologies.The vastness of the Internet as a medium doesn't focus the brain the way old fashioned research does, according to Kasting. These kids today have it so good with their I-pods and their global positioning satellites. When I was young, I had to use a 6-CD changer to listen to my music, now they've got it all at the touch of a button. Life isn't supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be long and grueling, and the only way out is death. That's what my high school guidance counselor said anyway.
Query searches locate and retrieve relevant documents that, in a conceptual subject framework, may not appear related. Toss in electronic subscription databases and the World Wide Web, and the research process takes place in an open system that has a flexibility print can't match."
Anybody can claim to be the world's greatest grandpa or the world's best lover, but there is still much debate about who is the world's worst lawyer. Dan Hull of What About Clients has presented a handy list of 7 things to do if you want to become a highly ineffective attorney.
1. Be risk-averse at all times. Clients have come to expect this from their lawyers. It's tradition. Honor it.According to legend, this list was found in an abandoned church and dated back to the mid-19th Century. Hull casts doubts on the legend because of the word "weenie," but the list is still worth contemplating.
2. Tell the client only what it can't do. Business clients are run by business people who take risks. They need to be managed, guided, stopped. Don't encourage them.
3. Whatever you do, don't take a stand, and don't make a recommendation. (You don't want to be wrong, do you?)
4. Treat the client as a potential adversary at all times. Keep a distance.
5. Cover yourself. Write a lot to the client. Craft lots of confirming letters which use clauses like "it is our understanding", "our analysis is limited to..." and "we do not express an opinion as to whether..."
6. Churn up extra fees with extra letters and memoranda and tasks. Milk the engagement. (If you are going to be a weenie anyway, you might as well be a sneaky weenie.)
7. As out-house counsel, you are American royalty. Never forget that.
Does the hectic workday of an attorney leave any room for love? Anonymous Law Student has offered up a blog entry about the hazards attorneys face in their romantic relationships. The blogger sent out a questionnaire to popular law bloggers, attorneys, and law school professors about their wives, husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends. The responses painted a rather bleak picture for lawyers in love. The majority of the respondents claimed that the pitfalls of legal practice, particularly as a young associate, were enough to kill most romantic relationships. The long hours in the office mean less time to spend with a significant other. Most respondents claimed that criminal litigation was the worst practice area to balance with a love life, though nearly all agreed that any big law practice could suffocate a relationship. Another major complaint was about taking work home. Even when a lawyer can manage to take time away from work for a romantic dinner, they are likely to be distracted by a big case. The nature of a lawyer's training also made sustaining a relationship challenging. Law school teaches attorneys to argue effectively. Big law firms make attorneys fiercely competitive. These traits can make for trouble in a relationship. Of course, some respondents felt that the risks of relationships for attorneys were not much different than the risks facing other professionals. Lack of communication and trust can be a problem for any couple, regardless of what they do for a living. Probably the best responses to Anonymous Law Student's questionnaire came from E. Thomas Kemp of the Kemplaw blog. He said that some people are just screwed up, attorneys or not, and they will find trouble in any relationship.
Some attorneys would be honored to be cited by a Supreme Court Justice. Professor Sam Walker, a leading criminologist, was not so pleased when Justice Scalia quoted him in the Hudson decision, which ruled that police are capable of regulating themselves. Scalia quoted from Walker's book "Taming the System: The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice," to prove that the courts don't need oversight of police because police forces have internal discipline systems. What the book actually says, however, is that internal police discipline systems were only created because judicial oversight forced them to do so. According to the Cato@Liberty blog, Walker says he was horrified to learn that his work was being used to support claims opposed to the ones in his own book. He sees Scalia's citation as a misuse of the quote.
As for me, I was happy when Reader's Digest published my letter to the editor about my inspirational encounter with a courageous kitten. I'm easy to please.
