Brother Preacher

Every February and July test takers sit in various venues for a 1.5 to 3 day period to take the Bar Exam. As someone who has taken the Bar, I’ll have to admit that it was one of the most physically and mentally demanding time periods of my life. You are essentially asked to cram loads of legal information (including various nuances in certain state laws) and commit that information to memory over a three month period. Many of my associates can attest to the fact that you are cut off from family, friends, social activities, and life generally for a period of three months studying for whatever state bar you are taking. Each state has its own level of difficulty. California Bar passage rates last year were at 54%. On the other end of the spectrum 91% of Montana test takers passed the bar in 2008.

I say all of that to tell you that I’m crazy. Why am I crazy?   (continue reading…)

Share on Facebook

So I read today that Arnold Schwarzenegger signed off on a new texting while driving law.  The LA Times reports:

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has banned motorists from sending, writing or reading messages on electronic devices starting Jan. 1, [2009].  Schwarzenegger signed legislation Wednesday that imposes a $20 fine for a first offense of texting while driving and a $50 fine for any subsequent violation.”

Are you kidding me?  Seriously?  Okay, so I totally understand the hands free law that went into effect a few months ago.  Since July, about 18,000 folks in California have been cited for talking on their cell phones while driving without using hands free devices.  The public policy behind the move is that people are distracted when talking on their cell phones.  Imposing fines will discourage them from doing so, thereby making our roads more safe.  I’m quite sure the statistics demonstrate that the less distractions one has the more keenly aware one is of his/her surroundings.  The thing that bothers me the most is that this “texting” legislation comes to the surface just weeks after the Metrolink crash out here in L.A. when a train operator is said to have been sending text messages while operating a train.  It always takes a tragedy to make people take action, but I question the enforcement strategy on this particular law.  In my opinion, the texting while driving law is going to be very hard to enforce (or arbitrarily enforced).  How do you differientiate a “texter” from someone attempting to dial a number with their hands free headset in?   How does this affect man hours in already depleted police departments across the state?  Some reactionary laws tend to rub me the wrong way, but I guess that most laws are reactionary.  It just seems like this particular law will be ineffective in achieving the means intended.  I mean, the Govenator is a trip.  He’s also propsosing an idea that will allow advertisements on “Amber Alert” boards in California now.  Advertising on Amber Alert boards y’all.  On boards that are supposed to make drivers aware of potential missing children.  The policy behind it: the boards are usually blank when a child is not abducted and it will make money for the state.  Okay, but what about that one time a child is abducted?  People will ignore the sign if you start putting ads on there.  Besides, wouldn’t the ads serve as a “distraction” as well?  Just curious.  Sometimes politics is sickening to me.

Share on Facebook

I graduated law school four years ago.  Time truly does fly.  Word does too.  I get calls from cousins I haven’t spoken with in ages.  “Hey cousin, I got locked up.  Think you can help?”  What am I going to do?  You already locked up.  I’m all the way across the country.  I can’t do nothing for you.  Besides, I’m just a coder.  That’s right.  A coder.  What is a coder you might ask?  A coder is a highly trained email assassin.  We lurk in snuggly fit law firm offices nationwide.  The Coders Creed will not allow me to tell you too much.  But coders are important (although you won’t hear it from the higher ups).  Officially, I am a document review attorney.  Sounds like fun, right?  Really it isn’t.  I read people’s emails all day long looking for particular legal issues.  The saddest part is that the irrelevant emails are the juiciest ones.  They are the gossip page fodder.  But we have to skip those and move on to more “substantive” emails.  To get all technically legal you on, I review documents to determine their inclusiveness for litigation preparation.  I know, sounds important.  But when it boils down to it.  I’m just a coder.  Don’t get Brother Preacher wrong, he’s a well paid coder.  No complaints here.  But explaining it gets a bit awkward at times.  Especially at family events.  “Hey, look, there’s John…he’s an attorney.”  The Ohhs and Ahhs come.  Then they ask what I do.  I look at them intently and say, “I work as a contract attorney with insert firm name here and I am part of a litigation preparation team of attorneys the firm employs.”  All that says: I’m just a coder.  But it sounds better.  Man, I think TV has messed folks up.  They hear attorney and they just suppose we know everything about law.  Would you go to a gynecologist for issues with your ear, nose, and throat?  Certainly not.  So why do people come to a coder with complex legal issues?  Don’t get me wrong, I could hop on LexisNexis or Westlaw and do the necessary research to come to a definitive legal conclusion.  But….I don’t feel like it.  I’m comfortable being a coder.  No one ever comes to me with coder issues though.  I don’t know why.  I can tag documents with the best of them.  I guess I’m supposed to be like the folks on Law and Order or something.  And I was those folks, for a little over a year.  But now I am doing other things with my life.  My “lawyer” life pays the bills now.  It’s supplemental.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind helping folks out and will do all I can to do so.  Just remember: I’m just a coder.

Share on Facebook