Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Okay, Look, It's Like This ...

I know everyone who posts "negative" advice - advice that is contrary to my stated goals here - is not a "hater".  However, some are.  And my last post was directed to them.  To interpret it otherwise is to miss the point.  If that wasn't clear before, it should be clear now. 

I put myself out here, for better or worse (for worse, mostly, it seems, at times like this) for my own reasons.  Call it therapy.  Whatever.  I know there are going to be people who laugh at, or make fun of, others when they're down.  That's life.  But they shouldn't expect their target to just lay down and accept their slings and arrows.  That's life too.  Their behavior is rude and disrespectful, plain and simple.  And if their parents haven't educated them properly, well, I'm sure I can't help them, but maybe I can give them reason to pause and think for a few seconds before they assault their next victim. 

Now, will everyone just go away and have a Happy Thanksgiving!

16 comments:

Stephen said...

People on the Internet can be dumbly cruel, but I don't think that has happened here. I've read the comments on every post since your most recent failure. I saw some harsh words, but none of what you're describing. Even the tactless comments didn't seem to be mocking you or wishing you any ill will. There were no slings or arrows. People simply think that it would be best for you—and for the CA bar—if you would at least give serious reconsideration to your circumstance.

If you don't mind, a suggestion. I don't see an introductory FAQ-type post on your blog. (Pardon if I've missed it.) From scanning the comments, I gathered that this was your seventh bar exam and that you completed law school someplace online. But I don't see those facts laid out somewhere obvious. And an FAQ-type post would also presumably answer the question being voiced by so many commenters: "This guy keeps failing. *Why* does he think still pursuing this course is the right decision?"

I'd add an asterisk. I like your blog. It's well written. But in this context (bar exam), the fact that you don't have an obvious "Click here!" FAQ-type post could be very telling, because that is precisely the sort of thing that good legal writing requires. Lay out the key facts quickly and obviously. Have you considered this? Have you even noticed that your blog doesn't have this? (Many do. Again, apologies if I've missed it. Where is it linked?) I wonder what this says about you as a legal writer.

You're an impressive and talented guy. People read your blog not just because it's like watching a car accident, as you've said, but also because you're a captivating writer. You also have proved your ability to get up off the dirt and persevere, and mostly with a smile. These are major character strengths...but some flaws become evident as well. Contrary to what you say above, I don't see people attacking you in the comments. I see people offering advice about your circumstance, albeit sometimes harshly, that might be in your and others' best interests.

legis said...

Hey, GP - I understand where you are coming from because I have been taking the NY bar exam longer than you have been taking the CA one. I also understand that some of the comments you get telling you that you wouldn't be a good lawyer, to hang it up and do something else, were framed in a derisive way and deserve to get called out.

But I do think that a major overhaul of your approach is needed here. What that overhaul entails, I'm not sure. That sort of thing is so individual. However I do believe that taking some time off from the test should be involved in your overhaul.

I'm not telling you to quit. More than anyone else on here I understand what it is to spend so many years on the exam and what it means to have invested so much in something you feel you have gone too far to simply quit. Simply I advise that skipping one administration might have some psychological benefits for you. It might also give you extra time to do a further analysis of whatever is going wrong and getting some more quality study in.

Anonymous said...

Hi.
How about Paul Pfau ($3,750)? Is he good? Pros and Cons?

Anonymous said...

How about Brian's Lawprism.com? Can you share experience?

Anonymous said...

Between Kaplan and Themis, which one is better, in terms of delivery of lecture and shortness (time-spent, length of lecture, short-effective, better)? Is the length same? I will use it to supplement by non-MBE knowledge (lecture). I mainly use conviser and barbri hand outs for substantive law.

Anonymous said...

Is the extracting the rule of law separately from ca bar essay answer website (for all period), separately, is efficient way of time spent for study (too much time with no effect?)? Has anybody done this? Can anybody do this together or send it to me?

Anonymous said...

Hi GP, saw your recent scaled score. I am wondering if you did pay attention to which portion of writing is pulling you down - PT or essays? DO remember that each PT equals 2 essays, so it is terribly important to make sure that your are strong with your PT. Writing 4 good essays and 2 poor PT will make it difficult to pass the writing portion of the essay. Think of how much you have to remember for the 4 essays v. merely learning how to be skilful at writing PTs.

Just a little reminder! Wishing you well.

kris said...

If passing the CA Bar exam was indicative of talent to be a competent lawyer, then someone explain how the Bar saw fit to turn Orly Taitz loose on the public.

I've combed through these posts and struggle to see the "hate". Serious. Do mooting or appear in court to get used to strips being torn off. After a while you won't care, will take what you like from it and leave the rest - and will crack on. It's trial life.

I've always suggested sitting a session out to regroup simply because it assisted me. During that time, I realised I needed to get into the habit of winning rather than losing - and to build on those wins.

Is there a professional responsibility baby exam you will need to take? Why not pass that first?

Anonymous said...

@ Kris - I'm one of the commenters whose remarks have undoubtedly qualified me as a "hater," by GP's standards. It's exactly because of your point - that passing the CA bar is NOT in any way indicative of talent. It doesn't even indicate that you are of sufficient competence to be a decent lawyer. It's a minimum competence test that is screening out *fewer* people than it should right now.

After several years of practice, I've seen the harm wreaked out clients' cases by (California) lawyers whose legal reasoning and writing skills are subpar. These lawyers end up waiving arguments they should have spotted, confusing courts/mediators/arbitrators because the arguments they have made aren't clear ... and at the end of the day, collecting money from clients for those shoddy services. When it comes to those lawyers, I AM a "hater". Too many times, I (and all of the other pro bono-motivated attorneys like me) have come in to clean up the damage, sometimes begging courts to grant extraordinary relief despite the fact that previous, ineffective attorneys didn't clearly make the right arguments in their written materials. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't. In either event, the disruption to the clients' lives will have been worsened by the previous, shoddy lawyering - by people who passed the state bar.

In view of this, I really am seriously concerned about people who demonstrate, year after year, that they can't even write good enough essays to join the ranks of the effective attorneys I described above. To be sure, it doesn't matter if they just keep failing and are never admitted to the bar. But if they luck out and hit the minimum 1440 on try 12 (or something), I genuinely believe that they're likely to harm the state bar by joining it. (Remember: this is because I believe the bar isn't screening out enough people at present, and that too many poor attorneys are slipping through the cracks.)

My concern is for the victims of these underqualified attorneys, if/when they finally become attorneys: their clients. It's not out out of "hate" for the people who are poor legal reasoners/writers. I'm sure they are fine people who are great to socialize with - have a beer, go to the movies. I'm also sure they have many other strengths, things they can do far better than those of us who have solid legal careers. I'd cheer them on wholeheartedly if they were doing those things. I just don't want them practicing law.

Anonymous said...

Apologies for the typo in my previous post - I meant to hit "Preview" rather than "Publish." Needless to say, I should have said "harm wreaked ON clients' cases" in paragraph 2, and "join the ranks of the INeffective attorneys" at the start of paragraph 3.

Anonymous said...

@ Kris - I'm one of the commenters whose remarks have undoubtedly qualified me as a "hater," by GP's standards. It's exactly because of your point - that passing the CA bar is NOT in any way indicative of talent. It doesn't even indicate that you are of sufficient competence to be a decent lawyer. It's a minimum competence test that is screening out *fewer* people than it should right now.

After several years of practice, I've seen the harm wreaked on clients' cases by (California) lawyers whose legal reasoning and writing skills are subpar. These lawyers end up waiving arguments they should have spotted, confusing courts/mediators/arbitrators because the arguments they have made aren't clear ... and at the end of the day, collecting money from clients for those shoddy services. When it comes to those lawyers, I AM a "hater". Too many times, I (and all of the other pro bono-motivated attorneys like me) have come in to clean up the damage, sometimes begging courts to grant extraordinary relief despite the fact that previous, ineffective attorneys didn't clearly make the right arguments in their written materials. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't. In either event, the disruption to the clients' lives will have been worsened by the previous, shoddy lawyering - by people who passed the state bar.

Anonymous said...

In view of this, I really am seriously concerned about people who demonstrate, year after year, that they can't even write good enough essays to join the ranks of the effective attorneys I described above. To be sure, it doesn't matter if they just keep failing and are never admitted to the bar. But if they luck out and hit the minimum 1440 on try 12 (or something), I genuinely believe that they're likely to harm the state bar by joining it. (Remember: this is because I believe the bar isn't screening out enough people at present, and that too many poor attorneys are slipping through the cracks.)

My concern is for the victims of these underqualified attorneys, if/when they finally become attorneys: their clients. It's not out out of "hate" for the people who are poor legal reasoners/writers. I'm sure they are fine people who are great to socialize with - have a beer, go to the movies. I'm also sure they have many other strengths, things they can do far better than those of us who have solid legal careers. I'd cheer them on wholeheartedly if they were doing those things. I just don't want them practicing law.

Anonymous said...

I received a 1439 on the Bar and will try again in February. Does that mean I will likely be a worse lawyer then someone who received a 1445 and passed. Not sure how an exam where except for the mbe portion you are subject to multiple graders with varying experiences and interpretations of what is acceptable writing and reasoning. I get it if you consistently score in the 1200s, but to say that missing by a few points dooms you to be a bad lawyer is ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

3:38/3:39 here. Three points in response to 6:42:

First, I'm not sure how much you know about the bar exam grading process, but your exam is read by a grader who has spent weeks going through a "calibration process" (I'm told by people who have served as graders that this literally means sitting around in a room with other graders until the graders start coming up with the same scores for the same essays.) So, there shouldn't be too much of an issue with "varying experiences and interpretations of what is acceptable writing and reasoning," particularly since the bar exam essays are so basic. Of course, once your exam goes into reread, you will have more than one grader.

Second, I wasn't talking about people who fail a single time, then pass. We all know the famous examples of amply skilled lawyers who needed a second try, usually because they were too busy with work to give the exam its due the first time around - e.g., Kathleen Sullivan. I was referring to "people who demonstrate, year after year, that they can't even write good enough essays" to pass. If you were a first-time taker, I wasn't talking about you.

Finally, I stated that the California bar is admitting too many incompetent lawyers. So I certainly don't think that everyone who scrapes the minimum score is going to be a good lawyer. But I do think that someone who fails over and over and over again is not very likely to be a competent lawyer, let alone a good one. (NB The repeat bar "failers" aren't usually getting 1439s, at least not consistently.)

Good luck in February, btw.

Anonymous said...

Hey anonymous 7:44:

Can't overlook the obvious either, or are we too dumb to spot that one glarin' issue-

That sooo many 'less competent' lawyers are bound to cut into your bottom line!
Oh, waaaa waaa, I won't be able to get my Benz detailed more than once a month,
or go clubbin' and get my groove on with those hollyweird babes and have my fave stogies in my golden humidor,
waaa

Life's a beach!
LOL

Anonymous said...

Haha, 9:52 - the truth is, I don't give a damn about making money. I tried the corporate litigator lifestyle briefly, despised everything about it (including the Benz-collecting attitude you describe), and left almost immediately for the world of public interest, voluntarily taking a more-than-$100,000 paycut without regret. My bottom line is unaffected by the "less competent" lawyers you describe; what I dislike is when *my clients* have suffered harm at their hands. So what you think is "obvious" is in fact completely inaccurate. But thanks for playing!

- 7:44