Leon, 3L

With the fall interview season officially coming to an end, I figured it might be useful to write a wrap-up review of the process. As I have mentioned before, recruiting started with something called the bidding process, in August. NUSL uses a suite of software called Symplicity to run the recruiting program. Students upload resumes, cover letters and writing samples, while the school uploads our course and co-op evaluations to the site. Then, you "bid" on the firms you want to interview with. These firms generally interview about 20 people (though I have seen as few as 4 people get called in for these interviews by one firm) in the one day that they spend on campus. It is pretty safe to assume that more than 20 students are interested in each firm, and so the first round of selection happens during this bidding process.

If your bid is accepted, you get to either accept or decline the invitation to interview. This is generally when students start to do serious research on the firms to figure out if there are firms out there that appeal more than others, or to weed out those that don't appeal at all. If you accept the invitation, you come in for a 20-minute long interview, which is held on-campus. Generally, if you are selected for one of these spots with the firm, it means you meet whatever cut-off they have for their applicants, meaning: you have the grades to be accepted. Your goal during this interview is to show enough about yourself and your interest in the firm to get what's called a call-back. A call-back is when you are "called back" and invited to visit the firm for the next round of interviews -- they are generally offered within three or so days of this initial interview, but some firms have been known to wait as long as a week before notifying those they would like to see again.

Call-back interviews usually involve anywhere from 4 to 8 (or so) associates and partners who usually get about 20 minutes each with you. Sometimes you are taken to lunch, other times you are not. It is important to remember that the lunch is part of the interview, and is not a social gathering of long-lost friends (in other words, stories about your drunken exploits the night before are probably off-limits). Another lunch tip -- order things that are not messy to eat -- you don't want to be fighting a lobster while discussing the finer points of your past summer internship.

Firms usually get back to you within two weeks of the call-back interview with either an offer or a "ding" letter -- a rejection (more on these next week). Once offers come out, the situation changes. Instead of you selling the firm on your abilities, the firm starts selling you on the benefits of working for them. This courtship generally includes dinners, more (optional) visits to the firm, and so forth. Within 45 days of receiving the offer you let the firm know whether you will accept it. Then you breathe a sigh of relief (usually just in time to start thinking about finals).

This is the process, as it would be, in the perfect world. However, the world is not perfect, especially this year. Our on-campus interviews came smack-dab in the middle of the financial melt-down and hyped-up fears of a looming recession the likes of which we have not seen since that little bump in the road we like to call the Great Depression. Firms interviewing potential summer associates are actually trying to look two years into the future, because they use their summer associate class as recruits for full-time employment at graduation. So, a firm making me an offer now is assuming that they will need me in the fall of 2010. As the markets crashed, summer classes (this is what a group of summer associates is called) at most firms shrank, which made call-backs and offers harder to come by. Wait times between call-back interviews and offer decisions increased from an average of two weeks to, in some cases, almost two months as law firms try to ensure they do not over-enroll their summer class. Students waiting for one of these firms to get back to them tend to sit on offers from other firms, which makes those firms delay answers to those they interviewed later in the process and creates self-perpetuating chaos and panic.

When the dust settles, those of us with offers can consider themselves incredibly lucky (given this economy) and can do our part by making our decision as quickly as possible (to free up those firms we are rejecting to make offers to others). Those without offers can take solace in the fact that they did everything they could (unless their names are Bernake or Paulson -- then they could have done much more). The co-op program is also a great safety-net for a lack of a summer associateship. While students enrolled elsewhere can find themselves at a loss when a summer associateship does not materialize, here at NUSL there is a network of employers ready and willing to pick up the so-called slack.

Personally, I was one of the lucky ones. I went to law school knowing that I wanted to work for a large firm in Boston when I graduated. It didn't particularly matter which one, as all the firms seemed the same at the time. Throughout this recruiting season, though, I've had the chance to learn a lot about the different firms and about the things that draw me to some of them more than others. Earlier this week I accepted an offer with a firm I absolutely loved throughout this process. The more I got to know about them the better the fit seemed: great reputation in Boston and beyond, small summer class (and a relatively transparent recruiting process), growing corporate/IP practice, beautiful location (though admittedly I have yet to see a firm in a lousy location), and most importantly -- really awesome people. The way I see it: we spend so much of our lives with coworkers that it makes to really be excited about seeing these people on a daily basis.

Can't wait for summer to start.

Posted by Leon at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For the past forty years, Northeastern has been known for two things: the co-op program and the focus on public interest law. This focus appeals to some, but I'll be honest, it did nothing for me. In fact, even though I am a Bostonian, I did not initially consider applying to NUSL. Since my well-shorn mug adorns these pages, something obviously changed my mind, so what was it?

The co-op program played a role, but it was relatively limited. The way I saw it, I wanted to work in BigLaw (for a large firm) when I graduated, and any good school gives you that opportunity, through on-campus interviews for summer associateships, which hopefully lead to full-time offers at the end of the summer. Sure, a good co-op and a good review from that co-op can and do help get those summer associateships, but so do letter grades, class rank (neither of which NUSL has) and law review (which we now have, but it requires no competition to be on it) as these things allow you to distinguish yourself from the rest of your class. My analytical brain (straight off LSAT preparation) considered these factors a wash -- whatever benefit co-op provided, the lack of true grades took away (keep in mind that the school did not have honorifics for grades the way it does now when I applied, my calculation might have been different had I known that we would have High Honors, Honors, Pass and Fail instead of just narrative evaluations).

Attending an LSAC forum here in Boston, I got tired of waiting in line behind many suit-wearing future 1Ls (why do people wear suits to those things?) for a prestigious and well-known school across the river. Wandering through the room, I came upon the NUSL table (why are the schools not arranged in alphabetical order?) That was when I had my epiphany, in the shape of a sheet of statistics similar to the following:

Class of 2007 Major Areas of Legal Practice:
Law Firms: 35%
Judicial Clerkships: 20%
Public Interest: 17%
Government: 9%
Business: 11%
Non-legal: 8%

So, let me see, the school I had written off (in my mind) because if was a public-interest law school put 35% of its graduates into law firms? While having 17% of your graduates go into public interest is a huge percentage (compared to other schools), what I had heard about Northeastern had made me think the number was closer to 71%. The incoming class was roughly 200 people, of those 70 ended up in law firms and another 22 ended up in something called Business. This was an eye-opener.

In the short year and a half(ish) that I have been here, I have noticed a trend, as well. Aside from the move to grades (see honorifics above or my posts on the subject from last year), the school seems to be shoring up its non-public-interest programs and image. For example, they brought in a new professor to teach transactional Intellectual Property law (Prof. Susan Mongomery) to supplement Professors Stacey Dogan and Rashmi Dyal-Chand. Last year, an IP symposium came to campus, and all the local law schools have IP-related presentations that rotate amongst the campuses which students are invited to attend (and which are an amazing opportunity to learn from and interact with some of the best minds in IP law).

Additionally, NUSL hosted the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board last night for a hearing on an opposition to a trademark application. The board normally sits in Washington, DC, but does occasionally travel. Having them come to NUSL is a privilege and an opportunity for Northeastern to expand its reach and name-recognition beyond Public Interest. Sitting in our gleaming, brand-new moot courtroom for the occasion, I couldn't help but think how wrong I had initially been about what this school was about.

So, if you are interested in Public Interest law, I hear we're pretty good at that -- but if you are not, turns out we're not just a public interest law school.

Posted by Leon at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

That was the term of endearment my wife and I came up with when Avis "upgraded" us to a Jeep Liberty the last time we were in Colorado (back when I had a life outside law school I did this thing called skiing -- it's this cool concept when you actually do something active outside, sometimes for an entire weekend -- you should try it, it's great). Having rented cars from various agencies over quite a number of years, I have developed a Pavlov-like growling response anytime the person behind the counter offers to upgrade me or give me something for nothing.

A little background: in my life, I have been upgraded to...
1. a Buick Century Classic (instant grandpa status!)
2. a Hyundai Deathtrap 2000 (truth in advertising should have required this name)
3. a Dodge Caravan (this is one I actually refused to accept, even at a half-price discount)
4. a PT Cruiser (coffin-mobile, and if you don't know what that means, it is because you have never driven one)
5. I could go on and on...

However, the Jeep made sense. We were headed into the mountains, and it was snowing. Had the car-rental gods finally decided to show mercy? Tentatively, we accepted the offering.

I fired up the Jeep, let out a manly(ish) grunt pulling the lever into 4WD Low and grinned with anticipation of doing all those cool things that I see the photogenic people in the Jeep commercials doing. The Jeep made a funny noise and then proceeded to get itself stuck in two inches of slush in the parking lot, while continuously flashing its "low traction" dummy light. Uhm, yeah, I know we have a low traction situation. I know this because I am pushing the gas pedal and we're not moving. Thanks for the heads-up, though -- really helpful! My grin turned into something reminiscent of Jack Nicholson's scowl from The Shining, as I realized that the Jeep and I would be in constant battle for the next two weeks. "Heeeeeeere's Johnny!"

The term refrigerator on wheels came a bit later, when we realized that the cornering ability of the Jeep Liberty is roughly comparable to a Frigidaire, placed on its side, with some wheels attached. Actually, that's probably not fair to the refrigerator.

I bring this up now, because I am currently driving a black version of the same vehicle as my car is in the shop. The vehicle I was supposed to get was a Nissan Pathfinder, which, I am sure, is a better truck, but it is also the size of a small building, and with the rather small parking spaces where I live, it would have had to figure out how to fold in half when I got home. Assured that folding the rental in half was not covered by my insurance, I opted for the Jeep. Honestly, I cannot believe how anyone would be surprised that Chrysler is having financial problems if they have ever driven one of these things. I just cannot. There is a silver lining, however: pedestrians are terrified of this thing. I don't know what about this friendly-looking mini-ute is so intimidating, but the number of people who walk out into traffic in front of me expecting me to stop on a dime or risk being sued for putting them out of their misery has been halved. Perhaps they have had the pleasure of driving one of these things and know how well they corner and stop? Again: I just don't know.

As Amy mentioned in her blog, last weekend NUSL capped off its 40th anniversary with a party at the Moakley Courthouse. For starters: I have never seen a more beautiful federal building. I am sure there's more to share, but I just got a call from the body shop -- my car is ready. And if you think I am spending one extra second in possession of the refrigerator on wheels -- well, you just haven't been paying attention.

Posted by Leon at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sometimes you can just tell that something is not a good idea. However, where some of us see ridiculousness, others see opportunity. So, ladies and gentlemen, I present... (drum roll, please) all-you-can-eat hockey tickets! Paramedics with defibrillators are standing by.

You do have to feel bad for the Bruins. They are located in a town which is crazy about sports and are at the same time owned by a guy who couldn't care less (by the way, please note the use of couldn't in that expression, I know the cool new way of saying this is "could care less", but that makes no sense, because it means he could actually care less. The point is that he could not. Between that, "irregardless" and the "their/there/they're" mess, we have covered the top three ways that people abuse the English language that get under my skin -- and aren't you glad we did?). The owner of a sports team needs to be a fan first and a businessman second. Teams that win championships consistently generally spend a significant amount of money on payroll, and thus are not nearly as profitable as teams that generate a lot of interest, but do not have the same high salaries. Jeremy Jacobs figured this formula out years ago, and so the Bruins are consistently good enough to get in the playoffs and play well enough to generate buzz (which hopefully carries over into next season) and generate revenue, but are always a piece or two short from a championship team, because the owner refuses to spend money. In the sixth-largest TV market in the country. In a part of the country where hockey is a natural sport, enjoyed by many in outdoor rinks for five months out of the year (unlike Florida, where ice is something you put in your drink, not something you skate on). Well, as those of you who have read this space over the last year know, I refuse to let myself be drawn into this. Jeremy Jacobs will not be getting any of my money, regardless (not irregardless) of how much free food I'm offered.

While on the subject of sports -- the entire sports universe is a mess, isn't it? The Red Sox are one loss away from being eliminated by a team we all lovingly called the "Double-A's" as recently as a year ago. The Patriots have lost their starting quarterback and are behind the Buffalo Bills in their division. Though, it is important to note that if the Pats are not going to win the division (or the Superbowl), then I'd want the Bills to do it. Buffalo fans are some of the most knowledgeable, dedicated fans on the planet. That, and let's be honest -- Buffalo needs this. What else do they have to look forward to up there?

In school-related news, there are events planned throughout this week to commemorate the school of law's 40th anniversary. The events culminate in a capstone reception at the new Federal Courthouse on Saturday. Now, this is a curious numbering system, since Northeastern's School of Law was actually the founding school of this university (in 1898). The school was then shut down in 1956 and re-opened in its current form in 1968 (hence the 40 year anniversary, I suppose). Why we celebrate the 40 and not the 110 years... I will never know, but I guess the number of years is not terribly important -- what is much more interesting is that this Saturday I will find myself voluntarily donning a suit to participate in multiple social interactions with other suit-wearing human beings, and none of it can be called an interview. That's definitely something to look forward to. Maybe I can convince someone there to buy the Bruins...

Posted by Leon at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." --Mark Twain

I can't think of a better way to describe this massive financial crisis that we are experiencing at the moment. Had I been leisure-reading (assuming I ever finish "The Summer of '49") some thriller involving the worlds of finance and banking and the plot turned to the complete meltdown we are now experiencing, I probably would have protested that it is not an even remotely plausible scenario. Well, folks, as a not-so-proud shareholder of Wachovia, it might not be believable, but it is certainly happening. Failures of banks that had survived the Great Depression, government bailouts of financial giants, as well as insurance companies, temporary bans on short-selling financial stocks, runs on banking institutions, the complete shutdown of any lending what-so-ever, we are certainly not in Kansas anymore.

However, being in school does insulate one a bit from this whole mess. Unlike some of my friends, I do not have to worry about whether I will keep my job, because, well, I don't have one at the moment. And while my stake in Wachovia is so far under water it keeps sending me post cards with pictures of reefs on them, it is not significant enough for me to pull the remnants of my hair out over it. I do admit (it would be tough not to) that the current state of the economy makes it just that much harder to get a job for next summer***, but a summer job does not a career make, and as 2Ls, we have a full year to watch the economy recover (hopefully).

Having said all this, I still find myself spending a lot of time on finance.google.com (and others) looking for any pertinent information on this. Why? Because it is fascinating, especially from a legal standpoint.

Let's take Wachovia, for example. Over the weekend of September 27th-28th, Wachovia, facing a "silent run on the bank" and a threatened take-over by the FDIC started actively seeking merger partners. Citibank, Wells Fargo and Spain's Banco Santander all showed interest. Without dwelling on the particulars, what emerged was an FDIC-backed (and some could argue mandated) deal (on Monday 9/29) between Citi and Wachovia which would result in Citi paying about $2.2billion for Wachovia's banking operations (about $1/share) and assuming the first $42billion in potential losses from Wachovia's mortgage portfolio, with the FDIC covering the rest of the risk in exchange for $12billion in preferred stock in Citi. This deal was subject to a Wachovia shareholder vote, as the FDIC was adamant that the bank did not fail, was not taken over by the FDIC (like Washington Mutual), and therefore wanted the transaction treated as a "regular" merger.

The story diverges depending on whose version of the facts you believe (Citi or Wachovia), but what is clear is that last Thursday Wells Fargo made a bid for all of Wachovia (not just the banking operations) which was then valued at $15billion or so ($7/share). This bid also does not require the intervention of the FDIC. Citibank, alerted of this development by a 2AM phone call to its CEO, was less than excited. It is easy to see why: the discrepancy in the two offers shows that Citi was getting a great deal.

This is where it gets interesting. Going into last weekend, Citi managed to get an injunction which extended it's exclusivity agreement with Wachovia for another week (it was set to expire on Monday). Wachovia reacted on two fronts: it appealed the state-court decision by attacking the authority of the state judge to issue his ruling while physically outside the state of New York (the judge had ruled from his home in Connecticut). The appeals court agreed, vacating the order. Wachovia and Wells Fargo are currently trying to get the case removed to Federal Court.

Simultaneously, Wachovia went to Federal District Court to try and get Citibank enjoined from enforcing this same exclusivity agreement. Interestingly, the crux of Wachovia's argument seems to be based on a provision in the newly-passed $700billion bailout, which seems to imply that there will be no liability for those who find themselves in the position of Wells Fargo -- meaning in violation of an exclusivity agreement. A hearing on this was originally scheduled for this past Tuesday but has been moved to Friday as the sides attempt to settle the dispute.

Meanwhile, Wachovia shareholders in North Carolina managed to get a preliminary injunction which would prohibit Citibank from enforcing... yup, this same exclusivity agreement with Wachovia.

By way of a "cherry on top", Citibank also sued Wachovia and Wells Fargo for $60 billion ($20 billion in damages and $40 billion in punitive damages), a number which reportedly might grow to $200 billion if the current settlement talks do not work out.

This means there are currently three different courts looking at the same provision of a contract between Citibank and Wachovia! As you can see, some of the rulings are clearly in conflict with each other, which is what makes this situation so interesting.

Another amazing aspect about all of this is that one could teach the entire first-year curriculum from this one event. There are multiple Civil Procedure elements: jurisdiction, venue, summary judgment, preliminary injunction, etc. Contracts issues are also obviously present, for example why did the Citi/Wachovia deal lack a punitive "walk away" clause? Constitutional law issues arise with the passage of the bailout, which has provisions which are questionable, to say the least. Property would be easily satisfied by looking into the details of the proposed mergers. While I see no actual Tort crimes having been committed, there is some talk of damages which would be useful in that class. No criminal charges have been filed yet, but this may just be a matter of time.

My only regret is that I am not closer to the action on this one -- thought I suppose if I were, I might be worried about keeping my job, so perhaps this is a good thing.

Have a good weekend everybody! (my weekend starts today). And Go Sox!

***Firms hire summer associates with the expectation of giving them offers for full-time employment after graduation. So, in effect, the firms are in the process of figuring out what their needs for first-year associates will be roughly two years from now. This process can't be easy when the economy is in the state of flux it is in right now.

Posted by Leon at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The thing that tilted the balance of school-selection towards NUSL, for me, was the co-op program. My undergrad institution had one, and I knew first-hand the benefit of "hitting the ground running" when you graduate. There is something to be said for having actual, practical experience to differentiate yourself from everyone else with a shiny, new, diploma. At the same time, the co-op program at NUSL offers something even more valuable: because you are required to work with four different employers, your horizons are necessarily widened.

When I started law school, I was very certain what I wanted to do when I got out: patent prosecution work, in the software field. I had a ton of experience in software, and it was the interaction with some patent attorneys that got me "over the hump" of choosing to quit my job and go back to school. However, once I got here, the blinders started to come off a little bit. Sitting in first-year classes that had nothing to do with intellectual property, or technology was none-the-less fascinating, as a way of connecting the legal world with the real world. When it came time to pick my first co-op, I talked to everyone I could find about it. I cornered the co-op staff in hallways, I called friends at all stages of their careers, and I talked to professors, second and third-year students and even the weird homeless guy with the "The World is Ending! Repent!" sandwich-board. With the exception of the homeless gentleman (who suggested I intern at Starbucks, which is odd in itself), everyone I talked to suggested either a judicial internship or a prosecutor's office. Choosing the U.S. Attorney's office, I had the expectation of learning a lot, but being incredibly bored with the subject matter. After all, what interest do I have in criminal law?

I couldn't have been more wrong. This summer, I got to push for the extension of Belton-type searches to car trunks with pass-throughs. I got to argue what "regular business operations" for a drug-dealing conspiracy are, in order to establish a reverse-sting operation as being "within normal business practices". I learned that possessing a "receiver" for a gun that was once designed to fire automatically requires registration of the weapon, even if it can no longer fire at all, much less in an automatic fashion. I got very closely acquainted with sentencing provisions, especially when it came to departures for "substantial assistance" and whether that meant other factors could then be used to reduce sentences further, under the Supreme Court's relatively recent rulings. I was never bored with the subject matter.

While researching the sentencing departure issue, I also had another epiphany. The most relevant First Circuit decision was written by a judge whose opinions are known for their wealth of vocabulary, their clarity, and "non-lawyer-speak" manner. It was clear, it was easy to read, and it was absolutely brilliant. We had read some opinions written by this judge before (in class), but getting to use it alongside other decisions to support my argument highlighted how much better the writing of this particular judge was. That instant, I was sold. Even though I had planned to make the U.S. Attorney my only foray into non-corporate law, I absolutely knew I had to work for this judge during one of my next three co-ops -- it is an opportunity to learn from the best that I simply could not pass up.

Seek, and ye shall find. The judge is a participating co-op employer, and I did not "bonk" my interview this past Monday, which, combined with my eval from the U.S. Attorney resulted in an offer. So this winter, I will be interning with a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Not just "a judge", though -- the judge I knew I absolutely, positively, without a doubt just had to work for -- no matter what. I guess I better go buy a new dictionary, I'll need it for all those vocab words.

All thanks to the co-op program.

Posted by Leon at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)