As I look for a job as an attorney, it is hard not to be discouraged with all the news. While the national news highlights the fact that the economy may be turning the corner at every speck of positive news they get, the news for law firm hiring gets worse and worse, even in light of the positive (perhaps false) news.
The New York Times has an article detailing the debt and the problems law students are having securing employment while in law school. It details the amount of debt some students took to enter law school, and how they are full of regret and wish they had gone to a less expensive school. However, many seem to go to law school to make money, with the law secondary:
“It was thought to be this green pasture of stability, a more comfortable life,” said Mr. Fanciullo, who had heard that 90 percent of N.Y.U. law graduates land jobs at firms, and counted on that to repay his loans. “It was almost written in stone that you’ll end up in a law firm, almost like a birthright.”
It is easy to attack them as misguided because they should have known the debt load they were going to accumulate. I knew the debt I was going to take on going to law school, and I do not regret doing so, as hard as it seems to pay off now. I'll pay it off somehow.
It also seems as if most who complain about their decision to the press went to law school for the wrong reasons. You go to law school because you want to be a lawyer, or are interested in law, not because you want to make a lot of money. Law is like any other trade, hard work will get you money with a little luck, regardless of where you work after law school. It is not, however, the license to print money that a lot of students think it is.
I just hope the opportunities to work hard start showing up soon.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
Class Action Stupidity - Vol. 1: iPhone MMS Class Action
People are suing AT&T because iPhones are still not able to send MMS messages. Notwithstanding the fact that AT&T and Apple have said ever since the 3.0 software was announced that MMS would not be available until later in the summer, some enterprising attorney has decided to jump the gun. Clearly, the only thing he's worried about is Autumn coming and a better law firm filing a slightly less frivolous lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims that:
Meeker bought an iPhone 3G on March 13 at an AT&T store in Fairview Heights, Ill., and asked if MMS was provided. The store representative "misrepresented and/or concealed, suppressed, or omitted facts as to the iPhone and MMS functionality," according to the complaint. When he tried to download MMS with the 3.0 upgrade, the MMS did not work. He was told by an Apple customer service rep that AT&T had not upgraded its towers and would not do so until late summer. (from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136743/Despite_two_lawsuits_AT_T_still_says_MMS_coming_by_late_summer_to_iPhone)
Naturally, Meeker never saw the disclaimer available on AT&T or Apple's website, and clearly saw nothing about the iPhone 3.0 announcement in the media. So he claims he's been damaged because the Apple store associate's "misrepresented and/or concealed, suppressed or omitted material facts as the to iPhone having MMS functionality." Of course he has, and it just so happens that his attorney claims over 100,000 others have been similarly damaged, all by devious sales reps at the Apple and AT&T stores.
Let's see. Apple and AT&T claim MMS will be out in late summer, and because MMS isn't out yet but it is still summer, a class action suit arises because of what a store associate supposedly said. And of course Meeker only wanted the iPhone for MMS. Not the browser or apps or e-mail, just the MMS. Not the touchscreen or the iPod or anything else, just the MMS.
If Apple or AT&T had stones, they'd make Meeker and his class prove it. They won't, and Meeker's attorney will be millions of dollars better for it, with the "class" getting perhaps a free download on iTunes. In that case, has anyone bought a Palm Pre and can't get access to iTunes? Did the person at the Sprint store tell you the phone could drive a car? I've got a feeling I can make a great case for me... I mean you.
The lawsuit claims that:
Meeker bought an iPhone 3G on March 13 at an AT&T store in Fairview Heights, Ill., and asked if MMS was provided. The store representative "misrepresented and/or concealed, suppressed, or omitted facts as to the iPhone and MMS functionality," according to the complaint. When he tried to download MMS with the 3.0 upgrade, the MMS did not work. He was told by an Apple customer service rep that AT&T had not upgraded its towers and would not do so until late summer. (from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136743/Despite_two_lawsuits_AT_T_still_says_MMS_coming_by_late_summer_to_iPhone)
Naturally, Meeker never saw the disclaimer available on AT&T or Apple's website, and clearly saw nothing about the iPhone 3.0 announcement in the media. So he claims he's been damaged because the Apple store associate's "misrepresented and/or concealed, suppressed or omitted material facts as the to iPhone having MMS functionality." Of course he has, and it just so happens that his attorney claims over 100,000 others have been similarly damaged, all by devious sales reps at the Apple and AT&T stores.
Let's see. Apple and AT&T claim MMS will be out in late summer, and because MMS isn't out yet but it is still summer, a class action suit arises because of what a store associate supposedly said. And of course Meeker only wanted the iPhone for MMS. Not the browser or apps or e-mail, just the MMS. Not the touchscreen or the iPod or anything else, just the MMS.
If Apple or AT&T had stones, they'd make Meeker and his class prove it. They won't, and Meeker's attorney will be millions of dollars better for it, with the "class" getting perhaps a free download on iTunes. In that case, has anyone bought a Palm Pre and can't get access to iTunes? Did the person at the Sprint store tell you the phone could drive a car? I've got a feeling I can make a great case for me... I mean you.
Lame Blog 2.0 - now with Twitter
I deleted the first blog because I did not want legal employers to see any independent thought I might have, thinking anything they knew about me would only hurt my quest for employment. Well, that worked out well! Law school and bar exam done and I don't have a legal job, so clearly the blog can't make anything worse for me.
So I'll start giving commentary on some things; probably not legal. While no one reads it, the use of blogs has lost public interest to Twitter, so I'll also send tweets to no one in particular. These fancy blogs will also go out via Twitter as well. This whole exercise is mostly to give me something to do that doesn't involve reading a book or applying for a job. There's no better time than now, considering the Red Sox won't be going anywhere.
The old blog had profiles of obscure presidential candidates, reviews of bad television, and lots of other useless information. And lots of posts from The Onion. Tons of them.
If somehow people start reading it, I might start focusing on something. But let's just say I don't think I'll need to start thinking about it any time soon.
So I'll start giving commentary on some things; probably not legal. While no one reads it, the use of blogs has lost public interest to Twitter, so I'll also send tweets to no one in particular. These fancy blogs will also go out via Twitter as well. This whole exercise is mostly to give me something to do that doesn't involve reading a book or applying for a job. There's no better time than now, considering the Red Sox won't be going anywhere.
The old blog had profiles of obscure presidential candidates, reviews of bad television, and lots of other useless information. And lots of posts from The Onion. Tons of them.
If somehow people start reading it, I might start focusing on something. But let's just say I don't think I'll need to start thinking about it any time soon.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
