Shout-outs for new law professors

Thanks to my buddy Tim Zinnecker for mentioning the advice I've given to "newbie" law profs (see here), and kudos to my buddy Jeff Lipshaw (and his co-authors, Brandon Denning and Marcia McCormick) for their forthcoming ABA book, Becoming a Law Professor: A Candidate's Guide (see here).  Brian Leiter mentioned this book on his blog today (see here). 

I'd call today a good day for law professors.

Newest guilty pleasure: everything "Jen Lancaster-y"

First, I picked up Bitter is the New Black.  Loved it.  Then I went straight to a Jen Lancaster trifecta:  Bright Lights, Big Ass; Such a Pretty Fat (with the world's best descriptions of working out w/trainers; and, like her, I too now have my own "strongs," thanks to my own trainer--our buddy Jeff Monroe); and Pretty in Plaid.  Loved 'em.  Now I'm reading My Fair Lazy and the Jen Lancaster blog, Jennsylvania.  I really like her snarky sense of humor and her way with descriptions. 

I know, I know.  Law professors are supposed to read highfalutin things in the summer.   Nope.  At least, not me.  Yes, I read stuff for the articles/books I'm doing; yes, I read other people's articles, especially when I've been asked to do a tenure review.  But for fun, I read things that take me out of my normal routine.

Now, back to my fun summer reads.  If you want to follow down the Jen Lancaster path, start w/Bitter is the New Black and go from there.

Billing judgment matters.

As I was reading this morning's Above the Law post about a federal court cutting legal fees because the law firm requesting fees failed to use good "billing judgment" (see here), I felt particularly vindicated by the Court's discussion of reasonableness.  I've been focusing on issues about legal fees lately (see here), and I think that it's much easier to rack up high fees and expenses when you're assuming that someone other than your client will be footing the bill.

Check out this language from the Court's opinion, which you can download here, thanks (again) to Above the Law:

The Court recognizes that the work performed on researching, drafting, and arguing the preliminary injunction motion provided important roadmap for Plaintiff with respect to its strategy in pursuing this litigation. However, spending almost 420 hours, which equates to almost 53 full work days7, on drafting and defending a preliminary injunction motion is unreasonable in light of Plaintiff’s counsel’s familiarity with the disputed issues. For the same reasons, spending approximately 50 hours on drafting and revising 11-page supplemental declarations and expending significant number of hours on post-Complaint research and preparation appear unreasonable to the Court.

(Opinion at 16.)  The opinion continues with a reduction, not just of fees, but of expenses as well:

Having considered the invoices submitted by Plaintiff and objections raised by Defendant, the Court finds that some of the expenses incurred by these Signature personnel were unnecessary and unreasonable. For example, it is difficult for the Court to believe, and Plaintiff does not explain how, that the faxing or internet charges incurred at the Westin, frequent “entertainment” charges in addition to meals, numerous first class plane tickets, limousine rides or pick-up service to and from the airport, and approximately $400 nightly stays at Hyatt were necessary and reasonable costs related to this litigation when cheaper more reasonable options were at the witnesses’ disposal. 

(Opinion at 36.)

When a lawyer speaks directly with a client about a high bill, there's that moment when the client is likely to ask about the reasons behind some of the charges.  When a lawyer doesn't have to look the client in the eye, so to speak, it's easier to lose track of what a "reasonable" fee or expense should be.

Reason number n why Andy Morriss and Bill Henderson rock.

Over at the Legal Profession Blog, Bill Henderson has posted an explanation of what it would take for Stanford Law School to overtake Yale in the U.S. News rankings (see here).  In this post, Bill explains that he and Andy Morriss create an annual simulation model of those rankings, and that this model has helped them figure out what Stanford would have to do in order to become #1 in the rankings.  The price tag for becoming #1?  Somewhere between $350 million and $1.8 billion.

Bill's conclusion?  No one could say it better:

The legal profession, especially our students, have some big problems at the moment.  And society's are even larger.  The best law school is one that prepares its students to solve these problems.  This requires a careful balance of innovative teaching and scholarship.  The U.S. News rankings don't capture these metrics.  In fact, they obscure them and create incentives for truly destructive behavior.  By and large the deans are trapped.  From my own perspective, I don't think even one law school in the US News Tier 1 has reached even 10% of its potential to educate and solve problems.  Too many one-professor silos.  Too much ego.

I am sorry to moralize.  But someone needed to say it.  Let's focus on some problems worth solving.  At the end of the day, it will be worth it.

Bill, I'm glad you said it.  BRAVO.

Two great "reads" in today's Wall Street Journal

One story about my buddy Randy Barnett (here) and one about what we should learn from Shirley Sherrod's story (here).

I am addicted to "Old Spice Man" and the parodies of his commercials.

I love Old Spice Man (see him here).  I also love the parodies of the Old Spice commercials (see here).

To all "we didn't really land on the moon" doubters

Mythbusters busted your myth (see herehttp://www.yourdiscovery.com/web/shows/mythbusters-nasa/).

We're number 11 (and not in the Spinal Tap sense....) (click on this heading for the Spinal Tap reference)

See here.  And, no, I'm not endorsing any online degree programs.  I don't know anything about that site.

Bravo to my cousin Tobi!

See this article (here), discussing Tobi's Sky and Water Meditation exhibit.  For more on Tobi, see here.  For more on my cousin Nessa, who married Tobi, see here.  


Not only do I love Tobi for appreciating Nessa and raising a wonderful family with her (and, of course, for his talent), but I remember how quickly Tobi and my hubby Jeff hit it off.  They're kindred spirits in a lot of important ways.


Bravo, Tobi!

Which Weapon of Choice video is better?

This new Kia commercial (see here) is great, but then, so's Fatboy Slim's original music video with Christopher Walken (see here).  (Yes, I know--one link has some delays, but trust me, both links are worth watching.)

For me, the win goes to Christopher Walken, who's an all-around amazing performer.  Jeff disagrees.

I want my commas back.

For years, I've been one of those truly obnoxious people pointing out grammatical errors and typos in signs.  Sometimes, I've even surreptitiously (and not so surreptitiously) erased such glaring errors as misused apostrophes.  When asked, I've explained that no one can make a noun plural by adding an apostrophe and an "s" and that "its" really does mean something different from "it's."  I know.  It's annoying for me to do that.  But--like Lynne Truss, the author of Eats, Shoots & Leaves--I believe that the decline in language ability is a precursor to the destruction of civilization as we know it.  I'm . . . a "wordie."

So when I see the latest anti-Harry Reid ad, with its "Really[,] Harry?" slogan (see here), I ask myself how an advertising company could manage not to insert the comma.  Would having a comma somehow scream "elitism" and fail to resonate with the voting public?  American Crossroads puts the comma in when announcing the ad (see here).  What happened to the missing comma in the ad itself?

Imagine how happy I was, then, to see an op-ed in today's Las Vegas Sun (I'd publish the link, but the Sun doesn't have it up) by Jan Freeman, my new favorite grammarian (see here).  The column discusses the history of various word pairs that supposedly connote distinctions (e.g., "authentic" vs. "genuine").  It's enough to make a wordie sigh happily.  Brava, Ms. Freeman!

Update:  For the opposite point of view, see here and here.   Hat tip to my buddy Bruce.

Why I love the Luxor Las Vegas

I had a gathering for some friends this week, and I talked with Felix Rappaport about how to make the event really memorable.  Felix introduced me to Jean George and Linda Kelly, both of whom took my breath away with the amount of spoiling they did:  a breathtaking room, two great cabanas, and champagne and snacks.  I felt like a VIP from the moment we arrived to the moment that we left.

Yes, the party was amazing, but I've always been impressed by the staff at Luxor.  Everyone from the valet to the bell desk to the folks at check-in to the folks at the shops -- all of them exceptionally nice and friendly.  (And all of them have said great things about Felix, Jean, and Linda.)

So thank you, Luxor, and here's to the next time I hang out with you!

Have you no sense of decency, Mr. Farrakhan?

I was not surprised but saddened by the latest venom spewing from Louis Farrakhan (see here).  He ignores the long history of Jews being deeply involved in the civil rights movement and regurgitates the hoary old saw about Jews "sitting on top of the world in power, with riches and influences . . . ."

Mr. Farrakhan:  Have you no sense of decency?

Another sign I love.

Hat tip to Cathy Glaze for spotting it.

Kudos to two hotels with great customer service.

I've been impressed with the exceptional level of customer service at the Hyatt Regency Minneapolis and the the Omni Bayfront in Corpus Christi.  It's nice to be able to give customer service kudos from time to time.

Every now and then, one of my research areas crops up in other blogs.

See here.  Hat tip to original post (here) at Legal Ethics Forum.

Oh, and that whole thing about when conflicts counsel should or shouldn't be used?  See here, here, and here.

Having courts think clearly about conflicts of interest in bankruptcy cases?  Wonderful.

Someday reading a court opinion that cites one of my articles on the topic?  Priceless.

Best sign at a conference. Ever.

(Seen while walking through a hotel on the way to another conference.)  That is one enthusiastic registration desk....

More shameless self-promotion.

See here.

Told you so (Skilling conviction overturned).

See here.  Opinion is here.  My prior post is here.

Do law school grades mean anything?

This morning's New York Times has a front-page article (here) about law schools raising their curves to make their students more attractive as job applicants.  (Hat tip to Scott Unger and my dad.)

That change reminds me of Ellen Degeneres's routine about the difference between "upright" and "reclined" on airplane seats (here).  We can call something whatever we want, but that doesn't change the nature of the thing.  Even if the curve goes higher (say, a curve around a B+ instead of a B-), it's still an ordering of all of the people in the course.

Curved grades tell people how a given person did on a given exam on a given day, compared to the other people who took the exam that day.  It's rather like George Carlin's old joke about partial scores in sports ("Notre Dame, 6").  It's information, but it's not complete information.

Employers use grades and the U.S. News rankings of schools because they believe that those two data points are approximations of how "good" the job candidates are, even though grades are actually not such a good shadow variable.  Very few clients ask their lawyers to answer hypotheticals for three hours.  There are a lot of the intangibles that make a good lawyer good, such as common sense, emotional intelligence, and teamwork, and grades don't necessarily correlate with those characteristics.  I keep telling employers that taking a little more time on the front end (for example, by asking job candidates to talk about how they'd approach a particular situation) would pay off in the long run (retention of good candidates).

But until employers are willing to spend more time looking at more than mere transcripts, I can understand how tempting it is to raise a school's curve.

Why not go all the way, though?  Some schools make it downright difficult to get anything but As.  Playing with curves is just the start of something big--why not grade for mastery instead of for comparison purposes?  Instead of curving grades, establish clear standards for what performance would constitute an A, what lesser performance would earn a B, etc.  Then grades might actually be useful to the outside world.

In the meantime, folks might want to read Dan Keating's article on grades:  Daniel Keating, Ten Myths About Law School Grading, 76 Wash. U. L.Q. 171 (1998).  It's a fun read.

Update (6/25) (hat tip to my buddy Seymour Serebnick):  see the NYT's letters to the editor about the original story here.