Comments on: Hey Biglaw – Where Were You When It Mattered? http://myshingle.com/2006/05/articles/criminal-law-practice-policy/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/ Great Things Come in Small [Law] Practices! Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:09:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: elguapo http://myshingle.com/2006/05/articles/criminal-law-practice-policy/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/comment-page-1/#comment-1711 elguapo Sat, 27 May 2006 05:22:42 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/517/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/#comment-1711 When I worked at BIGLAW, there was an associate who did a pro bono criminal case in municipal court. He raised a constitutional issue and ultimately the state supreme court granted certiorari. At that point, a senior partner decided that he should be the one arguing the case. I think it's the same concept -- high level attorneys at BIGLAW having boring meaningless jobs and who compete with eachother to see who has the bigger office, the bigger paycheck, the prettier secretary, and the glory of being able to tell people "I was just arguing a case before the supreme court . . . ." In my opinion, the quality of one's briefs and arguments before the Supreme Court won't make much of a difference. Each Supreme Court Justice has 4 law clerks. Some of the smartest and hardest-working law graduates in the country compete for these positions. I believe they are capable of evaluating and researching just about any argument, even if that argument could have been made in a clearer or more eloquent way. When I worked at BIGLAW, there was an associate who did a pro bono criminal case in municipal court. He raised a constitutional issue and ultimately the state supreme court granted certiorari. At that point, a senior partner decided that he should be the one arguing the case.
I think it’s the same concept — high level attorneys at BIGLAW having boring meaningless jobs and who compete with eachother to see who has the bigger office, the bigger paycheck, the prettier secretary, and the glory of being able to tell people “I was just arguing a case before the supreme court . . . .”
In my opinion, the quality of one’s briefs and arguments before the Supreme Court won’t make much of a difference. Each Supreme Court Justice has 4 law clerks. Some of the smartest and hardest-working law graduates in the country compete for these positions. I believe they are capable of evaluating and researching just about any argument, even if that argument could have been made in a clearer or more eloquent way.

]]> By: elguapo http://myshingle.com/2006/05/articles/criminal-law-practice-policy/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/comment-page-1/#comment-6685 elguapo Sat, 27 May 2006 05:22:00 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/517/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/#comment-6685 When I worked at BIGLAW, there was an associate who did a pro bono criminal case in municipal court. He raised a constitutional issue and ultimately the state supreme court granted certiorari. At that point, a senior partner decided that he should be the one arguing the case. I think it's the same concept -- high level attorneys at BIGLAW having boring meaningless jobs and who compete with eachother to see who has the bigger office, the bigger paycheck, the prettier secretary, and the glory of being able to tell people "I was just arguing a case before the supreme court . . . ." In my opinion, the quality of one's briefs and arguments before the Supreme Court won't make much of a difference. Each Supreme Court Justice has 4 law clerks. Some of the smartest and hardest-working law graduates in the country compete for these positions. I believe they are capable of evaluating and researching just about any argument, even if that argument could have been made in a clearer or more eloquent way. When I worked at BIGLAW, there was an associate who did a pro bono criminal case in municipal court. He raised a constitutional issue and ultimately the state supreme court granted certiorari. At that point, a senior partner decided that he should be the one arguing the case.
I think it’s the same concept — high level attorneys at BIGLAW having boring meaningless jobs and who compete with eachother to see who has the bigger office, the bigger paycheck, the prettier secretary, and the glory of being able to tell people “I was just arguing a case before the supreme court . . . .”
In my opinion, the quality of one’s briefs and arguments before the Supreme Court won’t make much of a difference. Each Supreme Court Justice has 4 law clerks. Some of the smartest and hardest-working law graduates in the country compete for these positions. I believe they are capable of evaluating and researching just about any argument, even if that argument could have been made in a clearer or more eloquent way.

]]> By: Stark County Law Library Blog http://myshingle.com/2006/05/articles/criminal-law-practice-policy/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/comment-page-1/#comment-1712 Stark County Law Library Blog Mon, 15 May 2006 07:29:08 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/517/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/#comment-1712 <strong>"Hey Biglaw - Where Were You When It Mattered?"</strong> Carolyn Elefant posted: "Apparently, competition for Supreme Court cases has now grown so intense that biglaw firms are trying to “Hey Biglaw – Where Were You When It Mattered?”

Carolyn Elefant posted: “Apparently, competition for Supreme Court cases has now grown so intense that biglaw firms are trying to

]]> By: Stark County Law Library Blog http://myshingle.com/2006/05/articles/criminal-law-practice-policy/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/comment-page-1/#comment-6686 Stark County Law Library Blog Mon, 15 May 2006 07:29:00 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/517/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/#comment-6686 <strong>"Hey Biglaw - Where Were You When It Mattered?"</strong> Carolyn Elefant posted: "Apparently, competition for Supreme Court cases has now grown so intense that biglaw firms are trying to “Hey Biglaw – Where Were You When It Mattered?”

Carolyn Elefant posted: “Apparently, competition for Supreme Court cases has now grown so intense that biglaw firms are trying to

]]> By: That Lawyer Dude http://myshingle.com/2006/05/articles/criminal-law-practice-policy/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/comment-page-1/#comment-1710 That Lawyer Dude Fri, 12 May 2006 21:34:27 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/517/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/#comment-1710 Sorry but I have to disagree with you. The NACDL is not at all seeking to steal cases from small and solo firm attorneys. Many of us who have worked on amicus briefs and who sit on the appeals committee are from solo and small firms. One laywer quoted in the Findlaw article, Josh Dratel is I believe a solo and very highly regarded. NACDL is the best friend a Solo or Small firm Criminal Lawyer can have. It is not run by Big law in fact very few of it's presidents have been from Big law. Many are academics (Barry Scheck) and even pro bono lawyers (Judy Clarke). Some (Nancy Hollander, Jerry Goldstein, and Al Krieger) run small shops. There is not a member of the board or the committee that would allow a big firm to snake a case from a small or solo firm. The issue here isn't about big law. Certainly Goldstein and Howe (now Howe and Russell are not a big firm. In fact they are pro bono. The way I read the article left me with the impression that while many BLF do try to steal the work, that is not what NACDL is about. I think you have mischaracterized the organization. Appellate work especially at the Supreme Court level is difficult. It is different from trial work and it is different from arguing in most state courts. That said, Solos and small firm lawyers can do it. They should (especially on their first time out) hire on or associate probono a mentor, someone whose been there before. Nacdl can help them find that person. They will need to focus and put aside a good portion of their practice. If they can make that committment then they can handle the job. I have seen quite a few SCOTUS arguments and read many a brief. I have yet to argue a case in SCOTUS but through NACDL and NYSACDL I have helped others without ever trying to take the case or steal the thunder. I hope you will correct the misperception your post leaves about NACDL Sorry but I have to disagree with you. The NACDL is not at all seeking to steal cases from small and solo firm attorneys. Many of us who have worked on amicus briefs and who sit on the appeals committee are from solo and small firms.
One laywer quoted in the Findlaw article, Josh Dratel is I believe a solo and very highly regarded. NACDL is the best friend a Solo or Small firm Criminal Lawyer can have. It is not run by Big law in fact very few of it’s presidents have been from Big law. Many are academics (Barry Scheck) and even pro bono lawyers (Judy Clarke). Some (Nancy Hollander, Jerry Goldstein, and Al Krieger) run small shops. There is not a member of the board or the committee that would allow a big firm to snake a case from a small or solo firm.
The issue here isn’t about big law. Certainly Goldstein and Howe (now Howe and Russell are not a big firm. In fact they are pro bono. The way I read the article left me with the impression that while many BLF do try to steal the work, that is not what NACDL is about. I think you have mischaracterized the organization.
Appellate work especially at the Supreme Court level is difficult. It is different from trial work and it is different from arguing in most state courts. That said, Solos and small firm lawyers can do it. They should (especially on their first time out) hire on or associate probono a mentor, someone whose been there before. Nacdl can help them find that person. They will need to focus and put aside a good portion of their practice. If they can make that committment then they can handle the job.
I have seen quite a few SCOTUS arguments and read many a brief. I have yet to argue a case in SCOTUS but through NACDL and NYSACDL I have helped others without ever trying to take the case or steal the thunder. I hope you will correct the misperception your post leaves about NACDL

]]> By: That Lawyer Dude http://myshingle.com/2006/05/articles/criminal-law-practice-policy/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/comment-page-1/#comment-6684 That Lawyer Dude Fri, 12 May 2006 21:34:00 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/517/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/#comment-6684 Sorry but I have to disagree with you. The NACDL is not at all seeking to steal cases from small and solo firm attorneys. Many of us who have worked on amicus briefs and who sit on the appeals committee are from solo and small firms. One laywer quoted in the Findlaw article, Josh Dratel is I believe a solo and very highly regarded. NACDL is the best friend a Solo or Small firm Criminal Lawyer can have. It is not run by Big law in fact very few of it's presidents have been from Big law. Many are academics (Barry Scheck) and even pro bono lawyers (Judy Clarke). Some (Nancy Hollander, Jerry Goldstein, and Al Krieger) run small shops. There is not a member of the board or the committee that would allow a big firm to snake a case from a small or solo firm. The issue here isn't about big law. Certainly Goldstein and Howe (now Howe and Russell are not a big firm. In fact they are pro bono. The way I read the article left me with the impression that while many BLF do try to steal the work, that is not what NACDL is about. I think you have mischaracterized the organization. Appellate work especially at the Supreme Court level is difficult. It is different from trial work and it is different from arguing in most state courts. That said, Solos and small firm lawyers can do it. They should (especially on their first time out) hire on or associate probono a mentor, someone whose been there before. Nacdl can help them find that person. They will need to focus and put aside a good portion of their practice. If they can make that committment then they can handle the job. I have seen quite a few SCOTUS arguments and read many a brief. I have yet to argue a case in SCOTUS but through NACDL and NYSACDL I have helped others without ever trying to take the case or steal the thunder. I hope you will correct the misperception your post leaves about NACDL Sorry but I have to disagree with you. The NACDL is not at all seeking to steal cases from small and solo firm attorneys. Many of us who have worked on amicus briefs and who sit on the appeals committee are from solo and small firms.
One laywer quoted in the Findlaw article, Josh Dratel is I believe a solo and very highly regarded. NACDL is the best friend a Solo or Small firm Criminal Lawyer can have. It is not run by Big law in fact very few of it’s presidents have been from Big law. Many are academics (Barry Scheck) and even pro bono lawyers (Judy Clarke). Some (Nancy Hollander, Jerry Goldstein, and Al Krieger) run small shops. There is not a member of the board or the committee that would allow a big firm to snake a case from a small or solo firm.
The issue here isn’t about big law. Certainly Goldstein and Howe (now Howe and Russell are not a big firm. In fact they are pro bono. The way I read the article left me with the impression that while many BLF do try to steal the work, that is not what NACDL is about. I think you have mischaracterized the organization.
Appellate work especially at the Supreme Court level is difficult. It is different from trial work and it is different from arguing in most state courts. That said, Solos and small firm lawyers can do it. They should (especially on their first time out) hire on or associate probono a mentor, someone whose been there before. Nacdl can help them find that person. They will need to focus and put aside a good portion of their practice. If they can make that committment then they can handle the job.
I have seen quite a few SCOTUS arguments and read many a brief. I have yet to argue a case in SCOTUS but through NACDL and NYSACDL I have helped others without ever trying to take the case or steal the thunder. I hope you will correct the misperception your post leaves about NACDL

]]> By: Sasha Golden http://myshingle.com/2006/05/articles/criminal-law-practice-policy/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/comment-page-1/#comment-1709 Sasha Golden Fri, 12 May 2006 11:22:00 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/517/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/#comment-1709 Of course the legal media is sucking up to BigLaw -- solos and small firms don't buy big enormous ads in the papers touting their fabulousness. Of course the legal media is sucking up to BigLaw — solos and small firms don’t buy big enormous ads in the papers touting their fabulousness.

]]> By: Sasha Golden http://myshingle.com/2006/05/articles/criminal-law-practice-policy/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/comment-page-1/#comment-6683 Sasha Golden Fri, 12 May 2006 11:22:00 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/517/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/#comment-6683 Of course the legal media is sucking up to BigLaw -- solos and small firms don't buy big enormous ads in the papers touting their fabulousness. Of course the legal media is sucking up to BigLaw — solos and small firms don’t buy big enormous ads in the papers touting their fabulousness.

]]> By: Sheryl Schelin http://myshingle.com/2006/05/articles/criminal-law-practice-policy/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/comment-page-1/#comment-1708 Sheryl Schelin Fri, 12 May 2006 09:32:40 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/517/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/#comment-1708 What bothers me most about this article is the presentation, frankly. It's no great shock that BigFLaw associates and partners look down on solos. The shock is that the legal media is falling right in line behind this position like panting dogs. The assumption is in the title (i.e., will those headstrong, less talented solos who couldn't hack it in BigFLaw own up to their own shortcomings and let their betters protect their clients?). How presumptuous, and how offensive. What bothers me most about this article is the presentation, frankly. It’s no great shock that BigFLaw associates and partners look down on solos. The shock is that the legal media is falling right in line behind this position like panting dogs. The assumption is in the title (i.e., will those headstrong, less talented solos who couldn’t hack it in BigFLaw own up to their own shortcomings and let their betters protect their clients?). How presumptuous, and how offensive.

]]> By: Sheryl Schelin http://myshingle.com/2006/05/articles/criminal-law-practice-policy/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/comment-page-1/#comment-6682 Sheryl Schelin Fri, 12 May 2006 09:32:00 +0000 http://174.120.83.8/~sh1ngl3/517/hey-biglaw-where-were-you-when-it-mattered/#comment-6682 What bothers me most about this article is the presentation, frankly. It's no great shock that BigFLaw associates and partners look down on solos. The shock is that the legal media is falling right in line behind this position like panting dogs. The assumption is in the title (i.e., will those headstrong, less talented solos who couldn't hack it in BigFLaw own up to their own shortcomings and let their betters protect their clients?). How presumptuous, and how offensive. What bothers me most about this article is the presentation, frankly. It’s no great shock that BigFLaw associates and partners look down on solos. The shock is that the legal media is falling right in line behind this position like panting dogs. The assumption is in the title (i.e., will those headstrong, less talented solos who couldn’t hack it in BigFLaw own up to their own shortcomings and let their betters protect their clients?). How presumptuous, and how offensive.

]]>