The other side of the fence

I'm at the point now when the grass just seems so much greener on the other side. I'm starting to see friends and people I've sat in class with who are now studying to take the Bar exam or who have passed the bar and are actually attorneys. It's sickening. I'm working on writing a 60 page paper, for which I'm actually paying my lawschool to give me credit.

Your Honor?

Someone called me "your honor" the other day. The other law clerk and I have been hearing name changes. It's so glamorous. Ohio Revised Code 2717.01 requires a hearing on a name change application that is mostly formality. The Court file reflects whether there is sufficient and proper evidence to approve a change of name. However, having a hearing gives us the opportunity to get the information from the applicants' own mouths while under oath. It's a lot of fun, especially when there are attorneys who have more years of experience than I have in age.

Example from other day:

Me: "Counsel, would you like to address anything before I ask your client some questions."

Counsel: "No, your honor. I would only like to submit this proof of publication to the Court."

Me: looking around in confusion.

Quote of the Day

Me: "Judge, may I go over some motions with you?"

Judge: "Sure."

Me: "Here is a Motion to Quash Evidence Made Part of the Court's Record. The proposed Ward does not believe...." and on I go with my explanation of the case

Judge: Silence.

Judge: Eye brows furrowed, "What attorney filed this? You know, Nik, shit don't stink till you stir the pot."

Me: mischievously smile. "Yes, sir."

Judge: "we'll address it on the date set for hearing."

Chasing Cars

I am beginning to wonder if there is anything solid, anything real out there. It's been a couple days of a lot of doubt in life as well as the legal world. Think about it. Who can you trust? It's not the "backstabbing" world of law that I'm talking about; it's the constant errant nature of man that is causing me to have this deep well of insecurity settling in my soul.

If I were to hire an attorney today, knowing what I know of all the attorneys I've met, I do not know if I would be comfortable hiring any of them. I've seen most of them make pretty big mistakes. I've seen a lot of them make pretty blatant "mistakes." I've seen a lot of them turn into attorneys I don't like, while being human beings I feel I have to like.

If I were to pick a friend to have my back in this legal maze, I know I would only be asking them to forfeit their opportunities to promote me and align themselves with my reputation, knowing that I could, in one second with one indiscreet move, take out their entire career.

If I were to pick a friend to support, I know very well that it could all come back to bite me in the ass in a few years--when that one isn't doing so great, when that one decides to accuse you of something, when that one won't scratch your back after you've scratched theirs.

I'm beginning to understand why many attorneys choose to be ruthless in their craft instead of good in their person. Unfortunately, there seems to be more security, albeit false, in the former--maybe because the delinquency of man is more constant than the decency. I don't know why the cynicism today, but I do know this. Some days, I just want to lay here and forget the world.

SOL

Since I left the day program and became one of those "bring down the bar passage rate" part time evening students, I've had the opportunity to watch my remaining day student friends vie for positions in different firms, of all different sizes and reputations. The process is quite exhausting actually.

I ran into M in the apple store last week as I was shopping for computers with a friend. M is clerking at a Mid-size firm that has several U.S. offices. He works 10-12 hour days. He's expecting a job offer by this fall. But,he only wants to work in this city's office because it's the "fun office." If he doesn't get a job offer this fall, he's moving on. But, where? Who hires a current 3rd year for a possible associate position at that size of firm? So, what happens if it gets to the end of August and the partners end up seeing something they don't like in M? Is he SOL? Does he have to go work for the county? God forbid, so he's working his ass off now so he doesn't have to be in that position later.

Then, I talked to A, who works at a smaller mid-size firm than M's firm and works 8-10 hour days. It's a 25 attorney firm. She hasn't heard anything yet about a job offer at her firm, so she went and asked one of the associates with family ties to the firm how the job offering process went there. There is no formal clerk review or any indication of one's performance. The associate only got his job offer the month before he graduated law school, and his dad's a partner. So, this was his advice: "you're doing great, the firm loves your work, now go set up meetings with ALL the partners before the second week in August to let them know you're interested in a long term position. They'll probably vote in August. Oh, and the firm can most likely only hire one person." There are two law clerks. So, A quickly jumps on the opportunity to address her future goals with all the partners, knowing that, if she succeeds, she kicks her comrade out of a job. She has the upper hand because the other clerk is out on vacation. So, does that mean his SOL is running short, potentially leaving him SOL? All I know is that A doesn't want to be stuck her third year without a job either; then she'd have to go work for the county.

Then, there's me. The conversation yesterday was, "hey, you wanna go in the judge's office and putt?" "nah, let's take naps."

I work for the county.

Vote for me because she looks like Whoopi Goldberg

As I'm sitting in my office reading about Boob Taft in the Gongwer, the court administrator runs in and asks, "what's going on out there?" A few seconds later, the elevators all ding and deputies come running out. Black-belt Magistrates are running around, ready to restrain unruly clients. "What's wrong?" we all were asking.

Well, it seems that, if you're the prettier sister, you shouldn't say your uglier sister looks like Whoopi Goldberg, because, if you do choose to say that, your family might get in a courtroom brawl and get dragged out by the deputies, leaving your poor 90 year old mother alone in the courtroom with some attorneys to determine who gets to take care of her.

Seriously, people. At least it made for some good drama. Anyway, she really did kind of look like Whoopi Goldberg.

where am I?

So, because of the ominous day of 6/06/06, many people have been "spooked" today. So, I go to law school to talk about future interests, class gifts, and the ridiculous rule against perpetuities; when I get here, the buzz, of course, is about the freakiness of this day. So, our professor opened a HUGE can of worms and asked a man in our class, who is a minister, to explain the demonic significance of the number 6, specifically, the series of three sixes.

He began simply enough, but then he started waxing eloquent on the school of ministerial thought of eschatology and the particular sect of pre-millenial dispensationalists. Although he is a man of God, I don't think he made a great impression on others in the class. For a second, I was so confused and thought I was back in Christian undergrad, sitting in the "End Times" seminar with Dr. Mullinex.

I think the Rule Against Perpetuities may be better than trying to figure out whether I am a pre-millenial dispensationalist.

Motion Denied because You're an Idiot!

This Order Denying Motion for Incomprehensibility quotes the movie, Billy Madison.

See the judge's footnote in response to the "Defendant's Motion to Discharge Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Response Opposing Objections to Discharge."

Cutting the Baby in Half

The Bible tells the account of King Solomon's wisdom in the passage about two women fighting over a baby. King Solomon, in all his wisdom, decided the best way to resolve the dispute was to cut the baby in half, giving each woman one half; the wise King knew this would prompt one woman's true love and motherhood to compel her to give up her rights to her baby to preserve the baby's safety while showing the true greed of the woman who only wanted the baby out of selfish reasons.

I sat in on a hearing this week that, as I saw more and more, made me realize that we as a society have allowed the baby to be cut in half.

Ohio law provides that a woman who wishes to give up her child for adoption must go before the court and formally relinquish her rights. This helps solidify the termination of her rights and prevent contesting the adoption later in the adoption process. While I believe this is a good preemptive measure, something about the whole hearing rubbed me the wrong way. I understand that there are times when the birth parents of a child can no longer physically care for that child. That child then needs other people to take the child into their family. What I don't understand is why it's ok for people to act irresponsibly and then run to a court to hand over the child, and all responsibility coming from that, simply because that person "isn't ready to become a parent." That person's irresponsible choices means that a child will have to go through emotional struggles that a child should never have to go through, knowing that someone had split that child's life in two--displaced that child's identity--simply because of their own selfish choices. In today's society, a person RARELY gives up a baby simply because they can't give the baby a good life. In today's society, most people make this kind of choice because they don't want to lose their own lifestyles. We can see evidence of this in the statistics of demographics who actually place a child for adoption. An African American young woman will rarely give her child up for adoption--even though she more often will fall in a lower income bracket than other women. Why is this so? Often times, the family steps in, taking a child as a precious addition to a family--not a curse, not an obstacle to success. The family will step in and hold a parent to his or her responsibilities and help where parental experiences and finances fall short. Some would argue that this doesn't give a child the best opportunity that child could have experienced. Some argue that this philosophy only drains our social welfare system. I disagree. This philosophy encourages people to start looking forward to the consequences of their own unwise actions. This philosophy leaves to families a social dynamic in which the state should not intervene. This allows a child to have the family that gave birth to the child--there's something a little distasteful about messing with God's choices of placement. This still leaves plenty of children who are orphaned by unfortunate events--acts of God--who are available to be adopted by good, loving families.

Maybe this view is just sparked by what I saw. I saw a slick, arrogant lawyer making thousands of dollars off the transfer of this baby. I saw a woman who sat with a disinterested look in her eyes; I saw her breathe a sigh of relief and smile at the end, knowing that she no longer had the financial burden of caring for a child she didn't want in the first place. The whole picture left a nasty, bitter taste in my mouth and made me want to run outside and get a breath of fresh air.

"Pasties"

I'm on a roll here. I really needed to blog. So, M and I are in Constitutional Law--class is about ready to start. Tonight we're covering more 1st Amendment issues with expressive conduct then moving to the public forum distinctions. Well, specifically, we're covering nude dancing as expressive conduct under the 1st Amendment.

Our class if full of fools. M and I are taking bets on how many times we will have to hear the words, "g-string," "pasties," and "nipples." I am planning on a full hour and a half of eye rolling.

My personal opinion, if you're going to an establishment, paying to see boobies, you probably should see boobies. If you're walking with your child on a public sidewalk, your child probably should not have to learn the term "g-string" or "pasty." Just my simple take on it.