Most law firms avoid posting jobs on Indeed or LinkedIn due to high costs. Instead, they publish them on their own websites, bar association pages, and niche legal boards. LawCrossing finds these hidden jobs, giving you access to exclusive opportunities.
Sign up now!
<<
As another bar exam passes us by, we look to the blogosphere for the honest reactions of the men and women who sat for it. Some stressed out, some planned the after-party, others analyzed their possible scores, and still others pointed out how totally B.S. the whole ordeal is. It's a crummy time for anybody—anybody except the big corporations who make a killing off students preparing for the bar exam. The Buffalo Wings & Vodka blog proposes a BAR/BRI-type course in which you get to punch a real-live MBE question writer in the face. But it's all over for now. Next February, the hand-wringing and gut-wrenching will begin anew. Until then, you can spend your days worrying about whether or not you passed.
A brewing controversy between the ABA and a growing number of law firms involves the use of mascots in attorney advertisements. Larry Bodine of the Professional Services Marketing Blog points out a new development that may have relevance to this controversy. Law firm Womble Carlyle just introduced a new series of ads with its mascot, a pit bull named Winston, dancing to funk music. See it here. Bodine thinks the spot is cool, and it should be noted that it actually is sort of cool. But let's not forget the fate of Florida firm Pape & Chandler, which used a very similar pit bull in its ads. The Florida Bar said that Pape & Chandler could not use the pit bull because it is misleading to clients and demeaning to attorneys. So if the pit bull can dance, it's not demeaning? I think it's the other way around.
A long time ago, before LawCrossing was around, this website was a dating service. It's true! It was called AttorneyOneNightStands, and it was a place where lawyers could meet local singles in their area for mutually degrading casual encounters. Since then, we've matured a little and now offer mostly law firm news and that sort of thing. But the Internet-dating racket has gained momentum. One such site, DontDateHimGirl, a website where a jilted lady can let the world know what a dog her man is, has recently come under fire by media watchdogs. While it's a very funny site, the guys who are lambasted don't seem to like it very much. Over a month ago, Legal Blog Watch mentioned that a man was angry at the website after he discovered his ex-girlfriends went on the site and characterized him as a bisexual womanizer with STDs. The bad news for DontDateHim: The guy was an attorney. Needless to say, he filed a lawsuit against the ex-girlfriends and the site. Last week, Howard Bashman of How Appealing reported that the ex-girlfriends have countersued, saying they weren't the ones who wrote those things on the website. The case is about more than whether or not this attorney has herpes or who posted about him on the Internet. It is about our God-given right to say cowardly and libelous things on the Internet without repercussions. The Judge will be keeping a close eye on this case and updating you soon.
One of the week's best stories from the law blogosphere involves an aspiring Hollywood screenwriter, a bungling cable guy, and a multimillion-dollar lawsuit. Thanks to J. Craig Williams of May It Please the Court for the story. A Los Angeles screenwriter called SBC to come and install high-speed Internet on his computer. The cable guy showed up (probably three hours late) and, in the process of installing DSL, deleted three screenplays from the guy's computer. I have had my fair share of bad experiences with the cable guy (screw Adelphia), so it seemed like sweet justice when the writer sued SBC for the lost scripts and punitive damages. Bad news for SBC: The writer had a $2.7-million deal in the works with a Hollywood studio for one of the scripts. In a reversal that could have come from the laptop of the laziest Hollywood hack, the jury awarded the writer a measly $60,000. The jury faulted the writer for not taking his computer into the shop immediately, and the members didn't seem to care about the writer's Hollywood deal. They probably also felt that being dumb and irresponsible was part of a cable guy's job. In his defense, the cable guy claimed he merely sat down on the writer's computer and started deleting random things from the laptop (a perfectly reasonable thing to do when on someone else's computer). Act III: An appellate court takes away $33,000 in punitive damages from the writer, saying that the dumb cable guy didn't show intent when he deleted the files. The happy ending is that the cable guy got fired.
One final programming note: Next week will be my final law blog rodeo roundup. I've accepted a teaching position at Nabisco© University Oatmeal Cookie School of Law in North Carolina. I've always wanted to go back to teaching, but it is sad to have to leave you behind. I don't know what's worse: leaving you without my hilarious and insightful views on law blogs and chat boards or depriving you of my stern yet loving face on the main page of LawCrossing. So it's once more into the abyss, then you're on your own.
Gain an advantage in your legal job search. LawCrossing uncovers hidden positions that firms post on their own websites and industry-specific job boards—jobs that never appear on Indeed or LinkedIn. Don't miss out.
Sign up now!
What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.
