South America

Law school things moving, ish

Just an update, for all those following this earth-shattering story:

I'm still accepted to a prominent IP law school in the west loop of downtown Chicago, and pending decisions from other prominent schools in the midwest, Maryland, and California.

In case you where wondering, my estimated cost of attendance for this year: $ 51,785.00

I make this up not. Vomit if you must, I might.

kill me please, law schools

Waitlsited at yet another fine institution, this time on the West Coast. Have I set a record yet?

The Jury on my law school plans is on recession

The 2006 US news rankings on Law Schools are out. Once again, most schools have denounced the rankings, as an arbitrary indicator and useless tool to decide where to drop your 200 grand on education.

That said, here´s my story. I´m waitlisted, like, all over the place. 6 schools at last count. It is a terrible feeling of uncertainty, not only because I´m currently in another country, but because the caliber of schools that have waitlisted me is so varied according to Mr. Us News.

For example, without naming names or specific locations, I´m concurrently on the waitlist at a top 20 school and a school placing in the mid 60´s. Sounds kind of ridicuous to me, but it is entirely true.

What´s more, another school in the mid 60´s has already accepted me and generously offered me a scholarship package. How does that figure?

The worst part is that I can´t gauge how long I can stay in South America till I know what school I will be attending when I return. Oh, the fun of law school applications.

You like me, you really really like me? A law school acceptance

I got my first law acceptance today, to Chicago-Kent College of Law in downtown Chicago. SO weird, I got it surreptitiously in an email:

Dear Mr. Kaplan: 

I just learned from the admissions office that you should be receiving an acceptance letter soon.  Great news! -The Dean

Ring a bell and take a shot for me, looks like I'm goin back to school after all! (just like Billy Madison...)

addition: I've just sent in my last application as well, number 11, so take THAT University of Maryland, take that.

6 down, ? more to go!

I am officially an applicant 6 distinct accredited law school at this very moment. Admissions committees, take heed!

And yes, more applications are on their way as well. I won't stop till I've applied to thousands. THOUSANDS!

Sidley makes the news for all the wrong reasons

I find that the most interesting national news stories are the ones that involve your former employer, people you know personally, and also your future profession. One such story popped up today, when news broke that Sidley Austin Brown & Wood is being sued by the EEOC (employment commission) for forcing partners to retire so that the company looked better on paper for the merger with Brown & Wood that happened in 2000.

I'm not going to elaborate much here on my personal knowledge of the players, and their attitudes towards the business, but I will say that generally there is an unspoken feeling amongst everyone there that employment laws do not apply to The Firm. This cultural anomaly probably exists for a number of reasons:

• The Firm has been in business for over 100 years, 'it knows what its doing'.
• The Firm is prestigious, and pays well in both cash and benefits to all its employees, so people tend to accept what they are told.
• The Firm has a premier employment law practice, which kind of makes you feel impervious to government intervention.
• From the top down, there is a silent 'just do it' mentality that pervades.

The government thinks this is a serious enough problem to intervene, and I actually agree with them, but not specifically for this case (where the actors involved where making 600,000 a year, jeez). Actually, I think this is an interesting banner case to take, because Sidley will obviously put up the universe's best law defense, but the crux of the issue isn't actually at big firms like Sidley.

The issue at hand here is whether or not you can use 'partnerships' to avoid labor laws, and the answer should obviously be no. The situation is dire enough for the case to proceed against Sidley, but the growing problem is with smaller employers that make people partners in title (with no equity, say, or real ownership capability) and then force them to work obscene hours under the guise of ownership. "Hey, if Sidley can get away with it, so can we."

I'm going out on a limb, but I'm pretty sure that's the problem the govt. is trying to address by nailing down the pompous, law circumventing big fish that in this case is my former employer. Smaller employers who are trying to circumvent labor laws by creating false partnerships will be warned if this case goes through, and if it fails, the militant right-wing anti-worker government we have installed will pour themselves another glass of Champagne.

I am quite interested to see how this one plays out.

4 apps down, somewhere around 6 more to go

I appreciate the furor over my incessant postings, and lack of law school app mentioning, especially from the 'addiq' family. Must be some Middle-Eastern New Yorkers I don't know who read this blog.

Rest assured that 3 apps where transmitted in full yesterday, with the rest going out before the end of this week. As Cheech Marin said in Ghostbusters 2, "Well, better late than never."

Now, just start wishing me luck.

Why am I applying to Law School?

What do I plan to do as a lawyer? Am I crazy?

It's simple, really. I plan to litigate cases that will make it possible for all walks of life to benefit from the greatness that is human progress, instead of only the already rich and powerful. Lucky for me, I've already got a specific field, a venue, in which to make this broad argument - IT.

Starting from the top - Communication is one of the most basic needs of a society, and also one of the most polarizing factors between classes. The people that control the modes and means of communication hold immense power in society. Currently, the decisions regarding most advanced popular form of communication (your using one right now to read this) are made by a handful of very very rich individuals, who either happen to live in Seattle or spend lots of time in an area encircled by a parking lot called 'The Beltway'.

I know me some computers and internets, and it's safe to say they are the future communication standards for the world already. Access to cost-effective computing is something that does not yet exist for the majority of people. Will we continue to keep the majority of people in the world from getting in on this communication mode, and joining in on our party?

The answer is a resounding Yes, if people in the US don't fight for the contrary.

In IT, I've (we've all) spent a good deal of time being bullied around by large software companies that have no real competition. These companies have a vested interest in keeping their products expensive, and controlling the direction of development to maximize profit, instead of security or availability of their products. When little companies come along and challenge the staid ones with new ideas or cheaper software, they are either swallowed up, or as it goes now, lawyered out of existence. The status quo is maintained, and the majority of poor people move on without computers.

If the fight for these little software guys isn't won, the government will protect the big companies and innovation will be stagnated. Worse yet, only the rich will continue to be able to use the newest technology, giving them a future lease on the unfair advantage that they already have. It's like saying that all business is done by phone, but you have to already have a phone to be in business.

Think about it this way- an operating system is necessary in order to use a computer. Certain operating systems' license fee costs more than many Americans pay per month in rent, forget about people in South America. Some competing operating systems are currently offered entirely free of charge, but the big companies with established interests and lobbyists are working hard to make sure by way of legislation (secure computing mandates, SCO lawsuit, etc) that people are forced to buy there products to use a computer. If that sounds dire for Americans, think about how a family business in Latin America trying to compete in the modern era feels.

A new world of case law and regulation will set the tone for the future of these technologies, but will it be used to make the rich richer, or help the little guys catch up? The big communications companies have made their stake already, and they want more of the same. However, there is a unique chance at this moment to decide how new technology will affect the world as a global community, but these decisions will be made solely within the legal and legislative systems of the United States.

Therefore, it is our responsibility to make the right choices for everyone, and allow the world to freely communicate. I've thought about this for years, and finally decided to go fight this fight myself. I'm going to be a lawyer who does the unthinkable, puts his training to work for everyone's benefit. I'm going to fight the unfightable, the status quo, the system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, and I'm probably do it on behalf of some dinky company offering free internet phone service, if I'm lucky. That's what the law will be for me.