Are Lawyers Happy: "A Law Firm Where Money Seemed Secondary"

As students considering entering the profession of law, it's difficult to refrain from imaging what life might be like if, someday, we were making millions of dollars. It surely doesn't help that as a student it's hard to find time to go food shopping and instead of enjoying 'Mad Men'-esque lunches of caviar and raw oysters, we generally snack on an instant bowl of couscous. Reporter James Steward, in his article, A Law Firm Where Money Seemed Secondary" directly challenges prospective lawyers, such as ourselves, to answer bold and difficult questions. Will I love working 26 hours a day? Will I enjoy coming to work among hundreds of nameless faces? Is this worth quitting my quartet, or soccer team, or my amateur poker club? Steward's article paints a bleak picture of the world of corporate law, showing few lawyers today who love their work. Do we agree with his portrayal?

Please read Steward's article here, curtsy of Professor Baulig.

New JMPLHS Executive Board elected for 2012-2013

In keeping with the drafting of new by-laws for the John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society (JMPLHS) at F&M, elections were held on March 20th for the Executive Board positions of Chair, Secretary-Treasurer, Admissions Director, Events Director, and Public Relations Director. Members of JMPLHS had the chance to review statements of interest and to ask questions of the candidates before casting their votes and electing the following students:

Chair: Akbar Hossain '13
Secretary-Treasurer: Ian Cummings '14
Admissions Director: Amanda Duckworth '13
Events Director: Elizabeth Murray '13
Public Relations Director: Michelle Carroll '13

These students will work to enhance JMPLHS and the entire pre-law program at F&M during the upcoming academic year.

Legal Film Series concludes TONIGHT (3/21) with "To Kill a Mockingbird"

The Legal Film Series at F&M (sponsored by the Center for Liberal Arts & Society and the John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society) concludes TONIGHT, March 21, with "To Kill a Mockingbird." The film will start at 7:30pm and will be showing in the Ware College House Great Room. Click here for more information.

Considered by many to be the best legal movie ever made, this film is based on the Pullitzer Prize-winning novel by Harper Lee. Gregory Peck won an Academy Award for Best Actor for his portrayal of Atticus Finch, a courageous small-town attorney who battles prejudice in the Depression-era south.

Greg Randall Lee, J.D., who teaches law at Widener University School of Law, will introduce the film and answer questions and talk to students.

Guest Post: An F&M alumnus' reflection

By Sean Quinn ’97, Trial Lawyer at Sheridan & Murray, LLC (Philadelphia)

Fifteen years ago this coming May, I graduated from Franklin & Marshall. I was 22 years old and I thought that I had it all figured out. My plan: go to law school, make law review, land a high-paying corporate law position at a big firm, play lots of golf, and make tons of money. Easier said than done, but what did I know….that was my plan.

I started law school that fall. I was a proud member of Penn State Law’s first class of students. I was prepared and ready to work hard to achieve the goals that I had set for myself. Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, Property, Contracts, Torts, Research & Writing didn’t stand a chance. I was going to excel no matter what class they threw at me. I saw those classes as hurdles that I needed to clear before I could get to the corporate and business law classes that would spur my career as a big-time corporate lawyer.

Then a funny thing happened though, I found myself drawn to the litigation classes like Torts and Civil Procedure, and hating transactional law classes like Contracts and Property. I blamed it on my professors and was confident that my zeal for corporate and business law would return during the second semester. Well, that didn’t happen and it caused me to reflect on my plan and my future.

I realized, for the first time, that my plan was doomed. It became apparent to me that my plan was predicated solely upon potential earnings, and not my interests and talents. Litigation was where I was meant to be. I thought to myself: how did I not know this sooner?

My plan had changed, and I quickly refocused the direction of my education. I took every litigation and advocacy course available. I competed for moot court and was named captain of our national trial team. I worked tirelessly outside of the classroom as well clerking for a local law firm, interning for a civil trial judge, and externing for the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office.

I found my passion and calling in litigation. Over a decade later, I remain proud to be a trial lawyer.

If I could give you only one piece of advice as you move on to law school, it would be to do something that you are passionate about. It is the key to a successful career.

-Sean Quinn ‘97

Sean E. Quinn, Esquire
SHERIDAN & MURRAY, LLC
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-977-9500
squinn@sheridanandmurray.com
LinkedIn: http://tinyurl.com/7tyo4lc
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/squinn71

Recommended Reading: the future of affirmative action

Affirmative action, for better or for worse, may come to an end in the United States during the Supreme Court's next term. On February 21, the Court agreed to hear arguments in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, in which Abigail Noel Fisher, a former applicant to the University of Texas, contends that her denial of admission was based on race (she is white) and that minority students with less-impressive academic credentials were admitted instead of her due to the influence of race-based affirmative action on the university's admissions process. The issue at hand is whether the Fourteenth Amendment's assurance of "equal protection under the law" supports or invalidates the system in place at the University of Texas in particular and race-based affirmative action in general, and whether standing jurisprudence on the issue should be re-affirmed or discarded as a consequence.

Obviously, this case has the potential to have a profound impact on higher education, since affirmative action could be definitively ruled unconstitutional, radically impacting admissions procedures at colleges and universities throughout the United States. Since the Supreme Court is much more right-leaning than it was the last time this issue was brought before the justices (in the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger which upheld, affirmative action at the University of Michigan, with minor alterations), that potential is now much closer to a reality. Fisher v. University of Texas may be the most important upcoming Supreme Court case after the challenge to the Affordable Care Act and President Obama's health care reform agenda.

Therefore, as you can imagine, everyone from established journalists to opinionated pundits have weighed in on affirmative action both in the aggregate and with respect to the specific case of Ms. Fisher. Here's a selection of some of the better pieces, all of which are worth reading if you're interested in understanding this important issue from all sides:

"Affirmative action review due next term"
Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog, as always, is the best source for a summary of the case, a history of the issue at hand, and a discussion of the different sides, their arguments, and how the Court will likely react.

"Room for Debate: Beyond Race in Affirmative Action"
Various contributors, New York Times
The New York Times provides a great collection of contributions from law professors, authors, and even a theoretical physicist in a special "Room for Debate" section devoted purely to the controversy surrounding Fisher v. University of Texas and affirmative action in general. Six individuals comment on the politics, history, and merits of each side of the issue and provide a variety of unique perspectives.

"College diversity at risk"
Lee C. Bollinger, Washington Post
Bollinger is the president of Columbia University and served as a defendant in the 2003 affirmative action cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. He argues in this op-ed, which came out before the Supreme Court decided to hear arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, that affirmative action is essential to preserving diversity in college campuses, and that the court should not only refuse to hear the case, but that it should re-affirm its prior rulings in favor of race-based affirmative action.

"Bad Marriage: Why the Supreme Court Should Stay Out of Affirmative Action"
Richard Thompson Ford, Slate Magazine
It's obvious that Ford supports affirmative action, but his argument that the Supreme Court should stay out of such a politically-charged and controversial issue is compelling nonetheless. He suggests that the Court's previous decisions on affirmative action "have been a disaster: They haven’t made university admissions any fairer, and they’ve sown confusion, resentment, and frustration," and, in comparing the debate to "a couples therapy session in a dysfunctional marriage," characterizes the Court as "an incompetent therapist, [which] has encouraged anger and distrust while making it harder to confront the root causes of disagreement."

"Will the Supreme Court End Affirmative Action?"
Dan Slater, The Daily Beast
Slater writes in reaction to the outcries from supporters of affirmative action over the Supreme Court's decision to hear the Fisher case and argues that precedent and Court protocol suggest that the justices won't be so bold as to strike down something as influential and mainstream as affirmative action. He says that the combination of a lack of both disagreement among the lower courts and demonstrable harm to Ms. Fisher (she already attended and graduated from Louisiana State University upon being denied admission to the University of Texas and is, essentially, only seeking a refund of her $100 application fee) all but guarantee that the Supreme Court won't overturn decades of precedent to make a statement on affirmative action.