Yes, Catholics have a new pope! In fact, the world has a new Pope, at least that’s the feeling one gets when reading the paper or watching the news. MSNBC devoted the entire afternoon to coverage once the white smoke appeared; the NYT sent out push notifications, Huffington Post  changed its headline and the twittersphere  exploded.   The anticipation of who the Pope would be was almost palatable as I stopped work and watched the coverage. The crowd was joyful, the newscasters were giddy with excitement, taking guesses at who it could be and what it meant for the church. Still there were people who asked,”who cares?” and “why does it matter?” Even as I watched and waited, I thought the same– what does it matter and why do so many people care?  Why is this news?

And then it hit me: it’s news because everyone, despite the prevalence of cynicism and declining interest in religion and more specifically the Catholic Church (particularly in the U.S.) is hopeful. A new pope might mean change in the world. It might mean that good is still there, that joy still abounds somewhere on this planet. We are all looking for someone to do it, or something to make it better. So yes, it does matter because if nothing else it shows promise and a future and new ideas.

Will the Catholic church do a 180 on contraception, gay marriage, women’s roles in the church?  Not likely. To be perfectly honest, I don’t care if it does nor do I expect it to. I understand, as a Catholic that the church has to take positions on certain issues and most frequently I will disagree. But what I do hope is that this Pope returns the church to what it should be– a place where caring, love, acceptance, forgiveness are the norm. A place not of deception and closed doors, but of open acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past and a determination to right all things in the world.   It is the church’s falling from these tenets that really mirrors how we have become as a society in every respect. Maybe the change of the Pope will mean that view will change as well. Here’s to hoping its an epidemic.

Today’s NYT posted an article about a new model for law school grads. Killing two birds with one stone: solving the employment crisis for new lawyers and allowing for legal help for the underrepresented poor.
Check out the article (eerily similar to my idea in my last blog entry!! I guess great minds think alike?) at this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/education/law-schools-look-to-medical-education-model.html?smid=pl-share

or read this:

To Place Graduates, Law Schools Are Opening Firms

Laura Segall for The New York Times

Douglas J. Sylvester, dean of the law school at Arizona State University, saw a way to address a shifting job market.

By ETHAN BRONNER

Published: March 7, 2013

TEMPE, Ariz. — When Douglas J. Sylvester, dean of the law school at Arizona State University, was visiting the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota a couple of years ago he mentioned the shifting job market for his students — far fewer offers and a new demand for graduates already able to draft documents and interact with clients.

Enlarge This Image

Laura Segall for The New York Times

Jason Clark, 24, left, and Arman Nafisi, 27, both students at the Arizona State University law school, working on an unemployment benefits case.

The Mayo dean responded that his medical students and graduates gained clinical experience in hospital rounds closely supervised by attending physicians.

“I realized that was what we needed,” Mr. Sylvester recalled. “A teaching hospital for law school graduates.”

The result is a nonprofit law firm that Arizona State is setting up this summer for some of its graduates. Over the next few years, 30 graduates will work under seasoned lawyers and be paid for a wide range of services provided at relatively low cost to the people of Phoenix.

The plan is one of a dozen efforts across the country to address two acute — and seemingly contradictory — problems: heavily indebted law graduates with no clients and a vast number of Americans unable to afford a lawyer.

This paradox, fed by the growth of Internet-based legal research and services, is at the heart of a crisis looming over the legal profession after decades of relentless growth and accumulated wealth. It is evident in the sharp drop in law school applications and the increasing numbers of Americans showing up in court without a lawyer.

“It’s a perfect storm,” said Stacy Caplow, a professor at Brooklyn Law School who focuses on clinical education. “The longstanding concerns over access to justice for most Americans and a lack of skills among law graduates are now combined with the problems faced by all law schools. It’s creating conditions for change.”

A pilot program at the University of California Hastings College of the Law will place some third-year students into offices like the public defender’s for full-time training on the understanding that the next year those students will be employed there for small salaries. The program is called Lawyers for America, a conscious echo of Teach for America, in which high-achieving college graduates work in low-income neighborhood schools. The hope, said Prof. Marsha Cohen of Hastings, is that other law schools will follow the model. Professor Caplow of Brooklyn Law said her school planned to be one of the first.

A dozen law schools, including City University of New York and Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, have set up incubators to train future solo practitioners in their first year out of school, offering office space and mentors. Pace Law School in White Plains, opened what it calls a community law practice last fall with four graduates serving the region.

“You can’t just hang out a shingle and expect clients to show up in droves,” said Jennifer C. Friedman, executive director of the Pace Community Law Practice. “We want to provide our graduates with the tools of success while serving low- and moderate-income clients.”

And the incoming president of the American Bar Association, James R. Silkenat, of New York, said his top priority next fall would be to establish a “legal job corps” to match lawyers who need jobs with clients who need legal assistance.

“We have these two issues running in opposite directions,” Mr. Silkenat said in an interview. “There are unmet legal needs because of money and geography that seem to be growing, and the question of how to make use of unemployed recent graduates.”

All law schools, including the elites, are increasing skills training by adding clinics and externships. Starting this fall, the University of Virginia will allow students to earn a semester of credit while working full time for nonprofit or government employers anywhere in the world. Law students at the University of Pennsylvania, starting in September, can earn a certificate of management from its Wharton School to improve management skills and accounting literacy. Many of the schools and plans mention medical education as their model.

The Arizona State approach, called the Alumni Law Group, appears to be the most ambitious because of the number of lawyers it will employ (30), its projected cost (a commercial firm of comparable size would cost $5 million a year to run, according to the school’s projections) and its hope to be self-sufficient in a couple of years by charging for its services and gathering donations.

The plan is to have four to five groups of lawyers each overseen by a full-time, salaried supervising lawyer serving a range of clients. The firm will do legal work for other parts of the university, including its high-tech innovation center. The aim is to charge $125 an hour in an area where the going hourly rate is $250. The school also says it wants to reach out to veterans, Hispanics and American Indians whose legal needs are not well met.

Other changes may help the program along. Arizona has just become the first state to allow law students to take the bar exam in their third year rather than after graduation. The school has announced the creation of the North American Law Degree, a three-year J.D. aimed at licensure in both Canada and the United States. Dean Sylvester, who is Canadian, said a big need for lawyers in Canada remained as well as for cross-border practice. The number of Canadians applying to Arizona State for law studies has just risen, as a result.

Arizona’s plan, mooted at bar meetings and within law school circles, is producing envy — but also skepticism. Some see a naked attempt to improve the school’s ratings in U.S. News and World Report by increasing the percentage of its graduates who find work while doing little to address the access-to-justice problem.

Critics say that $125 an hour is too high to serve those in need and too low to break even. Others say that Phoenix, a city of intense growth and few law students, could support such an operation but that others could not and that local law firms would resent the competition.

“We charge $50 an hour, and I don’t take any pay,” said Dennis A. Gladwell, who runs a smaller firm at the University of Utah with a staff of five graduates started 16 months ago. “If you are going to charge $125, you are not going to serve an underserved population.” Mr. Gladwell, who retired as a partner from the big firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, also said that despite having asked top local firms to send along cases they considered too small for themselves, none responded.

There are other obstacles. Teaching hospitals have a federal tax dispensation. For nonprofit law firms to qualify for an exemption, legislation is probably required. That seems unlikely at the moment. Arizona State is attaching its firm to its nonprofit alumni association to get around the problem for now.

Still, postgraduate training programs appear to be the way of the future for many of the nation’s 200 law schools. The law dean of Rutgers University just announced plans for anonprofit law firm for some of his graduates.

“I would love to blink and wake up in 10 years and see where all this ends,” said Ms. Friedman of Pace Law School. “We know about 10 to 15 programs opening in the coming years. That means there are 30 more behind them. Every faculty is talking about this.”

Bring Back Apprenticeships

Time for true confessions here. Sometimes I get a bit overwhelmed and feel a bit lost. When you practice law on your own, there’s a lot of uncertainty. Am I doing this right?  Is there a better way to do this?  Is there a faster way to do this?  Who can I ask for help.  Most of my life, in most of my work–I have had a great support group. Asking for help relatively easy, and because most of those people didn’t earn their living by charging by the hour, it didn’t feel like an imposition to ask for someone’s time. Now, despite the fact that countless lawyers have offered to help me as I make my practice grow, it feels like an imposition to call one of them up and say, “Could you help me ?”   I was expressing my concerns with a friend at dinner the other night.  She happens to be a Psychiatrist (no, it was not a therapy session–REALLY!) and told me of a great method medicine uses- a paid mentor. In addition to the apprenticing as a resident, when she first started to privately practice medicine she met with a mentor once a week and saved up all her questions and case reviews for that meeting. The mentor charged the hourly rate; a win-win. She suggested I find someone who was willing to do the same for me, and we both wondered aloud, “why did the legal profession stray from the apprenticeship model?” When did we get to the point where we thought people could graduate from law school and know what they were doing?

The very next day, an article appeared in the opinion page of the NYT asking, appealing (pun intended) the same thing. (you can read the full text through this link : Bring Back Apprenticeships)  CLEs are mandatory, and many lawyers complain about the drain on time when one is actively practicing law.  But what if we did away with — or reduced drastically the CLE requirement for veteran actively practicing lawyers– and instead required those leaders in their areas of expertise to put in time as mentors. In addition to the mentor model, let’s reinstitute the apprentice. Electricians apprentice, plumbers do it, physicians do it. When did the legal profession put ego and money ahead of providing good legal representation for everyone?  The legal profession has been bashed about for its steady decline in quality.  The fix is relatively simple and if Connecticut wanted to be a leader in the legal profession, it might step up and institute at least some small measure of apprenticeship.

we were made to accomplish the easy
things
and made to live through the things
hard.

“War Some of the Time” by Charles Bukowski

Most attorneys don’t venture into small claims– unless they’re doing collection work for a large client. Why don’t most attorneys do small claims work?  It might be from the warning the Magistrate issued at the beginning of the proceedings at my first appearnace.. he made a point of noting the bravery of attorneys to come to what is often referred to as, ”The People’s Court.”  and that made me a bit nervous. Was my client going to be judged more harshly, set to a higher standard because she asked for my assistance?  Was I an asset or a liability?  In many ways I wasn’t sure.

For starters, I had never been before (asset or liablity?) In fact, my experience in regard to any debt collection or litigation goes back to my paralegal days; much more behind the scenes and not standing in court as an advocate. But I did come prepared (definitely an asset – for anyone!) with a completed military affidavit and having read the rules of the court at least four times. I was one of a handful attorneys (asset or liablity? ) but my case was just a hearing in damages, the defendant having failed to file an appearnace or an answer (asset!).  So I already won on principle (reminding me of when the the other team failed to show up at my childhood softball games– INSTANT WIN!)  So, the rest was relatively easy. I can’t necessarily say that will be true for the collection of the amount owed, but that’s my next step.

As for the aspect of small claims that gives it the moniker “the people’s court”– I am not so sure. Most judges seem fairly tolerant of pro se parties, taking the time to explain things, reigning people in when they go off on tangents or irrelevant matters.  In probate court, pro se parties are the norm, and the judges there must constantly exercise patience and instruct the parties as to proper form and procedure. That didn’t seem any more present in small claims than in other courts. In fact, most of the people there had a sort of “deer in the headlights” look about them. My client asked me to help as a friend because the whole process seemed daunting to her. And it struck me then, as it does almost daily these days– that therein lies the role of an attorney. As much as we are advocates and might know the ins and outs of proceeding in court (and be more familiar with the pitfalls that come with bringing a lawsuit) we are really there to provide a steady, calm, somewhat emotionally detached force.  People are emotional; just watch the so-called real People’s Court on televsion and you’ll see how outrageous people get when they are so sure they are right, or when for them, “small claims” is actually a pretty big deal.

All in all, for me, a good experience. And I think it can be for anyone, attorney or not. Just read the rules (which,in all honesty can be intimidating for the untested) and come prepared. But then again, that advice can be applied to just about every situation.

I recently read an article in the NYT over the furor caused by Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article in this month’s Atlantic Magazine. The article, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All”  presents the position that the idea of  achieving  the fast-paced, high profile career isn’t necessarily attainable for most women, and many more things have to change for it to happen. Selling out by choosing family is not an admission of defeat, and those who do achieve such great success are, in all likelihood, superhuman with a huge support group behind them and more money to boot. These women who are the Icons of  ”Having it All”  are not role models, because most of us don’t have their resources, and using them as role models sets us up for failure.  It reminds me of what a wise, slightly- older-than-me told me when I had my first daughter and chose to teach part time rather than work full time as an attorney:  ”The women’s movement sold us a bill of goods– having it all is a myth that comes at all too high a price.”  Balancing work and family seems to be that much harder for women than men, and as a society we need to make adjustments and as individuals we need to make personal sacrifices to strike that balance.  Slaughter’s position, (read the article at: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-can-8217-t-have-it-all/9020/1/)

presents some compelling points that most of the women I know have already struggled with. Choosing family over career often gets a judgmental snide look, (or perhaps that’s envy?)  and women that do choose family over career often get that condescending, “oh, well, good for you that you could do it.”  kind of attitude.  When we finally do try to practice the work and family juggling act, we’re torn between things we really want to do and need to do on both fronts, leaving us feeling pretty miserable about both.

Are there solutions?  I don’t know. Slaughter has a few suggestions, having left a very prestigious job in Washington, D.C. and returning to academia she seems to have balanced it out.  But academia is not the real world, she readily acknowledges, and most women don’t have the flexibility to adjust their work schedules the way one can in academia.   The article provides some worthy considerations that we all need to take into account as we struggle with managing families and careers. Me, I’m still working on it– I’ll get back to you, because right now someone needs a ride to a swim practice.

Discretion is the perfection of reason, and a guide to us in all the duties of life.
Walter Scott

Why this quotation? Because it’s probably what paralyzes me every time I think about writing a blog post. I am desperately trying to find the balance between entertaining , interesting, thoughtful, and discreet enough not to violate the Code of  Ethics.  It’s a tall order, and some of the funny things that happen might make a good story for a cocktail party or a meet and greet, but not so much fodder for the blogosphere.  Discretion should be a guide, but I can’t let it completely silence me. So my new vow– a post every time I think of it about something I did this week that was new. Usually, that’s a lot!  Please bear with me as I find a balance and hopefully make this interesting.

Don’t fight forces, use them.
R. Buckminster Fuller