I know, I know, "things" is such a vague word. I could have used the term "documents," but that is pretty stodgy. With my time off for the winter break between semesters, I've been working on my manuscript and reading all sorts of books and blogs and such. And let me be perfectly clear that when I say "all sorts," I mean all sorts -- they ranged from five editions of The New Yorker to a scholarly book on the black plague to people.com to legal writing books to cookie recipes. Because this blog is primarily focused on legal issues, I wanted to share two law review articles and a recent District Court case.
First, in one of the many conversations I had with several professors about my mid-semester evaluations, I was told to read Martha Chamallas's The Shadow of Professor Kingsfield: Contemporary Dilemmas Facing Women Law Professors (11 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 195 (Winter 2005)). In the article, Chamallas talks about the expectation many law students have of what their law professor will look like and be like and the implications when the professor turns out differently. For the sake of providing a uniform image, she chose Professor Kingsfield from The Paper Chase as her model law professor. She writes, "Kingsfield is the prototype of the law professor because he actually defines 'competence' in the law." (198). He is a "sixty-something, white, meticulously dressed, [] demanding" man, who exudes confidence and "wrote the book" on contracts. (198). Chamallas talks about the troubling dichotomy students must then reconcile when their professor is a person color, is young, or is female. All too often (and likely without intention), that "other" professor is discounted despite professional accomplishments because of not having the appropriate professorial appearance. Chamallas provides some ways the law school community can combat this issue. Overall, I think it is definitely an article worth reading and considering.
Second, one of the legal writing blogs I read this past break discussed Jessica Slavin's Imagining the Law-Trained Reader: The Faculty Description of the Audience in Legal Writing Textbooks (16 Widener L. J. 983 (2006-2007)). Slavin focuses on how many of the high-value legal writing texts continually explain to students how busy, impatient, and perfect real world attorneys are and how that idea over-generalizes. I feel like Slavin is stating the obvious -- of course, it's a generalization! We all know someone who doesn't fit the mold. However, I know that many attorneys also do fit that mold, and I know that many of my friends work for those attorneys. I think that perhaps LRW professors can make an effort to help explain the wide spectrum of personalities of attorneys, but it seems rather obvious. Different people have different personalities; why do I need to teach that? In addition, I definitely believe in the "prepare for the worst and hope for the best" mentality. Personally, the judges I worked for were amazing and very fatherly. They were and remain my friends. The practicing attorneys I met and worked for were less so, but because I had been trained to prepare for the worst, I was ready for them and could handle them. Overall, I was not impressed, and it seemed like Slavin's article was a weak grasp at an article for publication.
With that harsh critique said, I think that, when taken together, Chamallas's and Slavin's articles point to the need for an honest discussion and acknowledgement of the rainbow (and I'm not just talking about race) of people who are now attorneys and law professors. It's no longer just the Kingsfields, rather, it is possible to be a corporate attorney in Manhattan at a large, international firm and be a tiny, soft-spoken woman (I know someone who is doing it!); it is possible to be an African-American man running his own entertainment law firm (another friend); it is possible to be an Asian-American man working for the government (a third friend); it is possible to be a caucasian, six-foot tall, strawberry-blonde, yoga-loving young woman as a legal writing professor (it's me!) . . . the possibilities are becoming endless now. Yes, we should acknowledge the differences and celebrate them; as I see it, we, as a educators and attorneys, have a duty to let our students know that someone's value as a lawyer is based on accomplishments not on appearances. However, as I said above, I feel that it is also our duty as educators and attorneys to prepare students for the Kingsfields of the legal world. They are a part of the spectrum too, and although their portion of the legal rainbow may be getting smaller, they are still there for reckoning, and I believe if our students are trained to handle them, they'll be okay.
Third, (I know, I'm long-winded today), I wanted to highlight the civil procedure case DFSB Kollective, et al. v. Kenny Tran, Case No. 11-CV-01049 of the Northen Dist. of California. One of the issues in this case dealt with whether the use of social networking sites and other inter-active internet sites gave California personal jurisdiction over the case. The court ruled that those internet activities certainly did give jurisdiction, and the court continued to grant a default judgment against the defendant for over $645,000. To give a little more background, the plaintiffs were Korean corporations with their principle places of business in Korea. The defendant lived in Australia, and he operated his websites from Australia. Because the defendant was using California companies (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to complete his business, the court held (through a series of elements) that California had sufficient personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This ruling cracked the rules of jurisdiction open even farther. We will see if the defendant will appeal to the 9th Circuit. This is one to watch.
First, in one of the many conversations I had with several professors about my mid-semester evaluations, I was told to read Martha Chamallas's The Shadow of Professor Kingsfield: Contemporary Dilemmas Facing Women Law Professors (11 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 195 (Winter 2005)). In the article, Chamallas talks about the expectation many law students have of what their law professor will look like and be like and the implications when the professor turns out differently. For the sake of providing a uniform image, she chose Professor Kingsfield from The Paper Chase as her model law professor. She writes, "Kingsfield is the prototype of the law professor because he actually defines 'competence' in the law." (198). He is a "sixty-something, white, meticulously dressed, [] demanding" man, who exudes confidence and "wrote the book" on contracts. (198). Chamallas talks about the troubling dichotomy students must then reconcile when their professor is a person color, is young, or is female. All too often (and likely without intention), that "other" professor is discounted despite professional accomplishments because of not having the appropriate professorial appearance. Chamallas provides some ways the law school community can combat this issue. Overall, I think it is definitely an article worth reading and considering.
Second, one of the legal writing blogs I read this past break discussed Jessica Slavin's Imagining the Law-Trained Reader: The Faculty Description of the Audience in Legal Writing Textbooks (16 Widener L. J. 983 (2006-2007)). Slavin focuses on how many of the high-value legal writing texts continually explain to students how busy, impatient, and perfect real world attorneys are and how that idea over-generalizes. I feel like Slavin is stating the obvious -- of course, it's a generalization! We all know someone who doesn't fit the mold. However, I know that many attorneys also do fit that mold, and I know that many of my friends work for those attorneys. I think that perhaps LRW professors can make an effort to help explain the wide spectrum of personalities of attorneys, but it seems rather obvious. Different people have different personalities; why do I need to teach that? In addition, I definitely believe in the "prepare for the worst and hope for the best" mentality. Personally, the judges I worked for were amazing and very fatherly. They were and remain my friends. The practicing attorneys I met and worked for were less so, but because I had been trained to prepare for the worst, I was ready for them and could handle them. Overall, I was not impressed, and it seemed like Slavin's article was a weak grasp at an article for publication.
With that harsh critique said, I think that, when taken together, Chamallas's and Slavin's articles point to the need for an honest discussion and acknowledgement of the rainbow (and I'm not just talking about race) of people who are now attorneys and law professors. It's no longer just the Kingsfields, rather, it is possible to be a corporate attorney in Manhattan at a large, international firm and be a tiny, soft-spoken woman (I know someone who is doing it!); it is possible to be an African-American man running his own entertainment law firm (another friend); it is possible to be an Asian-American man working for the government (a third friend); it is possible to be a caucasian, six-foot tall, strawberry-blonde, yoga-loving young woman as a legal writing professor (it's me!) . . . the possibilities are becoming endless now. Yes, we should acknowledge the differences and celebrate them; as I see it, we, as a educators and attorneys, have a duty to let our students know that someone's value as a lawyer is based on accomplishments not on appearances. However, as I said above, I feel that it is also our duty as educators and attorneys to prepare students for the Kingsfields of the legal world. They are a part of the spectrum too, and although their portion of the legal rainbow may be getting smaller, they are still there for reckoning, and I believe if our students are trained to handle them, they'll be okay.
Third, (I know, I'm long-winded today), I wanted to highlight the civil procedure case DFSB Kollective, et al. v. Kenny Tran, Case No. 11-CV-01049 of the Northen Dist. of California. One of the issues in this case dealt with whether the use of social networking sites and other inter-active internet sites gave California personal jurisdiction over the case. The court ruled that those internet activities certainly did give jurisdiction, and the court continued to grant a default judgment against the defendant for over $645,000. To give a little more background, the plaintiffs were Korean corporations with their principle places of business in Korea. The defendant lived in Australia, and he operated his websites from Australia. Because the defendant was using California companies (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to complete his business, the court held (through a series of elements) that California had sufficient personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This ruling cracked the rules of jurisdiction open even farther. We will see if the defendant will appeal to the 9th Circuit. This is one to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment