Law Jobs: The Complete Guide

After two years of extensive research that included interviewing more than 150 lawyers, my new book (with coauthors Chris Coughlin and Nancy Levit), Law Jobs: The Complete Guide, has been published by West Academic Publishing.  Here’s a description:

Choosing a legal career that fits a student’s personality, skillset, and aspirations is the most important and difficult decision a law student faces, yet only a small number of law schools incorporate career-planning into their curriculums. Law Jobs: The Complete Guide seeks to help fill the gap.  Law Jobs is a comprehensive, reader-friendly guide to every type of legal career. Packed with authoritative research and featuring comments from more than 150 lawyers who do the jobs, Law Jobs offers for each career general background, pros and cons, day in the life descriptions, and information about job availability, compensation, prospects for advancement, diversity, and how students can best position themselves for opportunities. Covered jobs include:

• Large and Medium-Sized Law Firms
• Small Firms and Solo Practitioners
• In-House and Other Corporate Counsel
• Government Agency Lawyers
• Non-Governmental Public Interest Law
• Prosecutors and Public Defenders
• Private Criminal Defense
• JD Advantage Jobs
• Contract (Freelance) Lawyering
• Judges, Mediators, and Arbitrators
• Judicial Law Clerks
• Legal Academic Jobs

Other chapters address lawyer happiness, the rapidly changing face of the legal profession due to technology and other forces, the division between litigation and transactional law, and the Top 50 legal specialty areas.

Together, the authors have received more than thirty awards for teaching and research, and have written extensively about law students and lawyers in books such as 1L of a Ride (McClurg), A Lawyer Writes (Coughlin), and The Happy Lawyer (Levit).

I got the idea for Law Jobs after reading too much about lawyer unhappiness and making the connection that many lawyers simply have not found their right place in the legal world.  Too many law students do no serious career-planning at all, instead resigning themselves to take whatever job comes along. But it’s far too important a decision to leave to chance.

There is no single right or wrong job for everyone because we’re all different. Students need to know themselves—their skillset, personality types, and true aspirations. Only then can they find the best job fit. We think our book does a good job of providing information to help students identify the careers most likely to lead to their long-term happiness.

New Artifact from Katko v. Briney, the Infamous Spring-Gun Case

The actual wire used to set up the shotgun trap in Katko v. Briney

Lawhaha.com has uncovered new details—and a Torts artifact—regarding the infamous “Iowa spring-gun case”: Katko v. Briney. Most law students read and remember this unusual case, in which plaintiff Marvin Katko broke into Ed and Bertha Briney’s abandoned farmhouse in Eddyville, Iowa, in search of old jars and bottles he considered to be antiques, only to have his leg blown off by a shotgun wired to a bed in one of the bedrooms.

(I once assigned my students to write poems about the case and collected them in an Oregon Law Review article, Poetry in Commotion: Katko v. Briney and the Bards of First-Year Torts.)

The court described the shotgun-trap as follows:

“After Mr. Briney cleaned and oiled his 20-gauge shotgun, the power of which he was well aware, defendants took it to the old house where they secured it to an iron bed with the barrel pointed at the bedroom door. It was rigged with wire from the doorknob to the gun’s trigger so it would fire when the door was opened. Briney first pointed the gun so an intruder would be hit in the stomach but at Mrs Briney’s suggestion it was lowered to hit the legs.” (Emphasis added.)

Now stop and take a look at the image. That’s right, it’s purportedly the actual wire used to rig the shotgun to the doorknob. How did I obtain this artifact (actually, only the picture of it)? Read on.

Katko sued the Brineys and—despite the fact that he broke into their farmhouse with an intent to steal—won a substantial jury verdict for both compensatory and punitive damages. Unable to pay it, the Brineys had to sell eighty acres of their farm to three neighbors who agreed to hold it in trust for the Brineys in the expectation that the Iowa Supreme Court would reverse the trial court’s judgment for Katko. But that didn’t happen. The judgment was affirmed on the ground that deadly force cannot be used to protect property only.

Last fall, teaching Katko to a class of 1Ls, a student raised her hand and volunteered that her boyfriend’s parents owned the Iowa property where the legendary farmhouse once stood and were in possession of the actual wire that was used in the shotgun trap.

The student arranged for me to interview “Jim,” her boyfriend’s father. (I’ll leave out last names for privacy reasons). Jim’s parents were one of the neighbors who bought the Briney’s property to hold in trust.

(Caveat: I have no way to confirm the following tidbits Jim shared with me, so take them as one observer’s memory of events that happened several decades ago).

I asked Jim what the Brineys were like.

“Well, they were a little strange,” he said. “They used to leave food in the house because they thought the ghosts of Mrs. Briney’s mother and father lived there. They left the house fully furnished, the table set, et cetera. They left food in the cupboard behind the table.”

If true, this may answer one of the questions students often have about the case. The Brineys set the shotgun trap because the abandoned house had been repeatedly broken into. Students commonly ask, “Why didn’t they just take anything of value out of the house?”

Seeking to establish the provenance of the purported Briney wire, I asked, “How did you know to keep the wire?”

“It was still attached to the bed,” Jim said. “My wife took it off and we kept it.” That was before they intentionally burned down the house, a barn, and a machine shed because they “weren’t worth anything.” (I suggested he consider donating the wire to the American Museum of Tort Law, but he said they wanted to keep it.)

As for Marvin Katko, Jim said he knew him from school. He said they were in the school band together. Marvin played saxophone and even had a local dance band at one point.

“It was after high school that he [Katko] started being known as a delinquent,” Jim said. “He had somewhat of a reputation around town.”

Jim claims Katko was suspected of stealing a marble-top dresser from the Briney’s house prior to the occasion where he was shot. He also asserted, “Ed Briney tried to shoot Katko himself. Many nights he laid on his stomach in the house with his gun waiting for Katko to come.”

After the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s verdict, a dispute arose as to the land held in trust by the neighbors. According to the Prosser, Wade & Schwartz Torts casebook, the Brineys and Katko joined together to sue the neighbors and the lawsuit was settled for enough to pay the judgment against the Brineys. Jim says his father bought out the other two neighbors and handed the property down to him.

Jim said there was a great debate in Eddyville at the time of the case and for years after, with some people siding with Marvin Katko and others defending the Brineys. A niece of Marvin Katko once sent me an email affirming that it was very difficult for the Katko family to regain friends after the event.

Sadly, Marvin Katko committed suicide in 1994.

Tortious Intent? Girl Knocks Toddler Into Foam Pit

Yesterday I taught my first Torts class of the year and, as always, we began with Garratt v. Dailey, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955), where an elderly woman sued a five-year-old boy for battery for pulling a chair out from under her as she was (allegedly) trying to sit in it.

The main issue was whether the Brian Dailey, the five-year-old, had what is called “belief intent” (aka “substantial certainty” intent) that the plaintiff would try to sit where the chair had been previously situated in the backyard.

But an interesting side issue was whether a five-year-old is capable of forming the requisite “intent” to commit an intentional tort.  Perhaps surprisingly to non-lawyers, the Garratt court, as have other courts, held that even young children have the mental capacity to form the intent to inflict a harmful or offensive bodily contact upon another.

Students often question this principle, arguing that five-year-olds lack the mental capacity to appreciate the consequences of their acts.  Importantly, the law of intent does not require that the child intended to “injure” the other or to appreciate all the ramifications of his or her acts (such as, in Garratt, that the elderly plaintiff would suffer a fractured hip when she fell to the ground).

But now a video clip of a young girl walloping her infant brother into a foam pit strongly suggests the courts got it right on this point:

Wacky Patents: Ohio State Seeks to Trademark “The”

The Ohio State University has filed a patent application for the word “THE”.  What THE … !! oops, sorry, don’t want to get a cease and desist letter.  But it’s no joke.  See Trademark application No. 88571984, filed Aug. 8, 2019.  Here’s an article about it.

I knew it would happen someday.  Eighteen years ago, in a Harmless Error column in the American Bar Association Journal, I published an intellectual property parody titled The© Controversy, about a made-up cease and desist letter I received claiming a copyright in the word “the”.  Here’s an excerpt from the column:

The letter asserts that Mr. Ug—allegedly a Homo erectus Peking Man domiciled in a cave in China 500,000 years ago—was first to utter the word the. The heirs are claiming a copyright in the and want me to quit using it. They also seek damages for past infringement. I could use some legal advice. Here’s the letter:

Dear Sir:

We recently became aware of your meager attempts to achieve humor through the© deliberate and willful exploitation of our client’s property; to wit, the© word the©.

Specifically, in the© past 48 months, we have documented more than 7000 copyright infringements of the© protected work in your humor columns, email, bathroom graffiti and other writings, all in violation The© Copyright Act of 1976, §101 et seq.

Mr. Ug copyrighted the© in or about 498,000 B.C. when, as a result of an apparent misunderstanding of the properties of fire, he pressed tongue to palate while simultaneously exhaling, thereby authoring theeeeaaaaahhhhieeeee, one of the most enduring and highly-creative works of the 498th century, B.C.

(Immediately thereafter, he authored another dramatic work — ump, ump, ump — while bludgeoning himself with a club to distract from the pain in his flaming foot.)

As Mr. Ug’s lawful heirs, our clients assert a copyright in the© entire compilation work and a derivative right in each subpart: the, eee, aaaaa, hhhh, ieeeee, as well as ump (which we are currently disputing with Major League Baseball).

As you may know, copyright law requires that the protected work be expressed in a tangible form. Fortunately, Mr. Ug was a Peking Man of great foresight.

Enclosed is a photograph of the inside of Mr. Ug’s residence where you can clearly see the copyrighted works carved in the rock directly above the crude drawing of what appears to be a sabre-tooth tiger devouring Mr. Ug’s neighbor (we also assert a copyright in all pictures of tigers, neighbors and food products). According to our expert anthropologist, the chisel mark at the end is in fact a © symbol.

We demand that you immediately cease and desist using the© either orally or in writing and that you compensate our clients for past use. Be advised that This Letter© is copyrighted and that copying, quoting or even reading it will subject you to additional legal action.

Very truly yours,

We Own It, the Macho IP Firm

I received an email from a lawyer who took the column seriously (seriously?), arguing that “the” cannot be copyrighted.  But can it be trademarked?  We’ll wait and see.

Dumb as a Doormat Product Warning

Many of my friends have posted this picture of a warning label on a doormat on Facebook and tagged me in it because they know I love wacky warnings.  This one definitely qualifies as wacky, but intentionally so.

All of the comments mention how hilarious it is.  It is amusing, but I have a different take on it.  I think it’s a ridiculously dumb warning from a legal standpoint.

I concede that doormats are not very dangerous, and the probability of them causing injury is low.  Admittedly, it’s not quite like putting funny warnings on a chainsaw or ladder.

However, people have sued over, for example, a slippery doormat that was advertised as “non-slip,” which doesn’t appear to be the case here.  As any tort lawyer or professor can attest, in tort law, the worst than can possibly happen often does.

Why take the chance at all?  Just suppose, hypothetically, that this doormat slipped on the floor, causing someone to fall and suffer a broken hip.  Can you imagine the field day the plaintiff’s lawyer would have examining the corporate representative?

Plaintiff’s lawyer:  So you believe that labels warning consumers of risks of your products are, literally, a joke.  Isn’t that true?

Company representative: Homina, homina, homina … (picture Ralph Kramden from The Honeymooners).

Or what if the company sells other products that are more dangerous and gets sued for a defective warning on one of them?  This attempt to be amusing on their doormat warning might still come back to bite them.

It simply makes zero legal sense to treat product warnings as a joke, no matter how low the risk of a product causing harm is perceived to be.

The Danger of Using Humor in a Courtroom

No surprise, I’m a fan of humor.  One of my most reliable defense mechanisms to life’s dark moments is to find humor in the situation.  I’m also a big proponent of using humor in the arena of public speaking, although I’ve written about the risks of doing so.  (See Andrew J. McClurg, The Risks of Being Funny, GPSolo, Apr. 2003, at 60.)

Humor in a court proceeding, however, is a different ballgame.  Starting out my career as a law clerk to a federal district judge, I saw humor, usually unplanned and spontaneous, work well in court on several occasions.  But in an excellent ABA Journal article, Texas attorney John G. Browning makes a strong case for avoiding any effort to be funny in court, primarily by discussing a number of cringeworthy examples from real cases.

Such as when attorney Jay Floyd, arguing to defend Texas’s abortion laws before the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, made the decision to begin his oral argument with: “It’s an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word.”  Browning recounts that, not surprisingly, this “tone-deaf and sexist attempt at humor was met with an extended painful silence from the justices.”

Browning’s article is highly recommended reading.

All 50 Harmless Error Columns Right Here

Available for the first time in one place, below is the complete inventory of McClurg’s Harmless Error humor column in the American Bar Association Journal, which ran monthly from October 1997-December 2001.

Many of these columns have been reprinted elsewhere. Caroline Kennedy included Santa Suit (Jan. 2000) in her anthology, A Family Christmas, where it appears alongside works by the likes of Mark Twain, Robert Frost, and Shakespeare.  (Use the Contact link for permissions requests.)

Read Reader Praise for Harmless Error.

All fifty columns appear below.  Learn more about Harmless Error and get a clickable list of all fifty columns by title and date here.

Wet Baseball Field? No Problem. Set it on Fire.

People frequently ask me, What makes for a good lawyer?  “Problem-solving skills” is the first answer that comes to mind. Do you possess them? Take this test and see.

Problem: A high school baseball game is scheduled. Unfortunately, the field is wet from heavy rain. How do you solve this problem?

Answer choices:

(a) Play the game on the wet field because what’s the big deal with that?

(b) Recognizing that a wet field risks injury to players, make your best efforts to squeegee off or soak up the water.

(c) Recognizing that (b) would be too much freaking work, cancel the game and reschedule it for when the field is dry.

(d) Pour 24 gallons of gasoline on the field and set the damn thing on fire.

(d) was the choice made at a high school baseball field in Connecticut, turning the field into a toxic mess that will cost an estimated $50,000 to clean up. The town posted the news on its Facebook page, generously taking responsibility for the incident: “A poor decision was made … to ‘dry the field quicker’ and 24 gallons of gasoline was poured and set on fire.”

If you picked (d), congratulations! You should avoid law school (please), but have potentially positioned yourself to be an influencer for a major oil company.

No Cash Here, Just Blood and Urine

Not a legal warning, but an interesting notice posted on a lock box at a local medical facility: “No Drugs or Money Kept in Box; Blood and Urine Specimens Only.”

Probably effective unless, of course, it’s encountered by someone actually looking to steal blood or urine samples, in which case it’s an invitation.  Of course, that’s silly because no one would ever want to steal a blood or urine sample.

Or would they?  (Spoiler alert:  The link leads to an article about a man who stole his wife’s urine to submit as a sample, leading to the revelation the man was pregnant.)

 

The Amazing One-Day Warranty

“Hurry up and break!”

That’s what you might be saying to your new “Mini Garment Steamer” if you read the User’s Manual and come across this one-day warranty:

“If your product has a manufacture defect, we want to improve your using experience by giving you a replacement or refund.  For a minimum of 1 day after the date purchase, we promise to cover any manufacture defects your product may have.”  (Bold added.)

There are some other warranties in the manual, so this appears to be more a case of poor drafting than an effort to limit consumer remedies.  After all, it doesn’t say a “maximum” of one day; only a minimum.

For further evidence of that conclusion, we offer this warning, also found in the User’s Manual:

So if you’re weak, sluggish, mentally disabled, lack experience with mini garment steamers, or just don’t have any common sense, avoid this product.