We thought it was harmless at first. Creating robots made sense. Who better to lead the litigation for a scumbag defendant than a being that can’t think about the moral implications of setting that scumbag free? A robot’s voice might not be completely sympathetic, but who needs sympathetic when you can focus on real justice and let the low-life do the dirty work? People thought these robots would be more like the grocery store self-checkouts. Turns out, they were more like “The Terminator.” Not the third or the fourth Terminator, but James Cameron’s versions.

After a few years, The Wall Street Journal warned us that law students would start losing jobs to these things, so lawyers started refusing to hire them. Signs outside of buildings like “Robots Need Not Apply” were littered across the country. Local police even stopped robots on the street and asked to see the robots’ barcodes if they believed that the robot was smuggled into the Country.

More and more robots were being programmed with legal educations and were sneaking into the country from Canada. (I always knew not to trust the Canadians.)

Soon enough robots were starting their own firms and were taking cases from other robots. They were getting clerkships, and their juries were becoming increasingly robotic since they weren’t programmed to have prejudices against defendants. We knew it was only a matter of time before the first robot Supreme Court Justice was announced.

Fast-forward to today: Humans have been completely ousted from the government and legal sectors. There’s now a whole new generation of scumbags and the humans are in hiding. It didn’t take long before humans at risk for extinction.

Only about 20,000 humans are left and time is running out. We just need to find a Will Smith-type character to destroy the robots’ hub, Best Buy. It all started earnestly and it ended in disaster. We should have listened to The Wall Street Journal, but nobody’s read the paper for twenty years.

Related posts:

1. ’Dozo Partakes in Occupy Wall Street General Assembly Meeting
2. Cardozo Students Hit Hong Kong
3. Are Law Journals Really Worth Your Time?

Simply put, Mitt Romney is the ablest candidate to lead this country forward based on his experiences in the private and public sector. In contrast to President Obama, Governor Romney has shown leadership, sound judgment, bipartisanship and enviable results. Graduating from Harvard with a J.D./M.B.A., Mitt Romney entered the private sector, climbed the corporate ladder and became the CEO of Bain Capital, which specializes in turning around struggling entities and has helped companies like the Sports Authority and Domino’s Pizza, creating thousands of jobs. Working in the private sector he gained an outstanding command of the economy: how to eliminate waste and inefficiency, the value of data analysis and presentation, the importance of being focused yet flexible and the merit of seeking opposing viewpoints. He then led the 2002 Winter Olympics, where his turnaround of the once flagging enterprise to being a profitable endeavor was so successful it was used as a case study in Harvard Business School. As Massachusetts Governor he faced a projected $3 billion deficit and an economy that was losing jobs. Working with a Democratic legislature, he left Massachusetts a $2 billion surplus and a growing economy, all while cutting taxes 19 times.

Beyond Romney’s impressive pedigree, we must ask what his vision is for the country he hopes to lead and compare records and goals with the incumbent. As someone who believes we must live within our means, Romney plans to cut discretionary spending by five percent. As someone who worked in the global economy he believes in competitiveness and free trade. Therefore he plans to cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, reform the tax code and implement trade deals with allies in Colombia and South Korea. Now contrast Romney’s record and plan with our current president’s record. President Obama promised his deficit spending stimulus bills would hold the unemployment rate at 8 percent and Vice President Biden claimed two summers ago would be “the summer of recovery.” Today the unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent, which sounds more like a “winter of discontent,” and worse President Obama wants to keep on spending.

Their respective worldviews are also starkly different. President Obama sees government as the engine of economic growth and having a large role in the lives of its citizenry. In contrast, Governor Romney wants to empower the individual, incentivize entrepreneurship, and right-size our government.

One of the more popular critiques of Governor Romney is that he is a Mormom. This bigoted criticism need not be dignified with a response. People criticize (bi-partisan) “Romneycare” as being the blueprint for “Obamacare.” But in Massachusetts there were no new taxes and it was only geared for the 8 percent of people who were uninsured. Romney is also accused of changing positions on some issues, but flexibility is better than rigidity, and demonstrates the ability to admit and learn from mistakes.

There are other fine Republican candidates and President Obama himself is an intelligent and articulate person. However the need for an economic turnaround and jobs for law students means we need a turnaround specialist who actually understands the economy, who can bring people together, and who, instead of taking us on the “Road to Serfdom,” will help restore “The Wealth of Nations.” That person, ladies and gentlemen, is Mitt Romney.

Related posts:

1. GOP Stance on Immigration: Making Obama Look Good
2. The Donald for President?
3. Yeshiva President Joel’s Salary Twelfth Highest in Survey

Lately, I have been deeply disenchanted with President Obama’s policies in Libya, Afghanistan, Mexico, and the Middle East.  I’ve also been troubled with his stance on Guantanamo and immigration here in the U.S., but, after listening to the GOP candidates on healthcare, national security, and especially immigration, the Obama Administration seemed humane in comparison.

The good news is that there is a larger percentage of Latino voters expected to participate in the polls in 2012 than ever before. In a recent Pew survey, despite the fact that Latino voters ranked education and the economy as their top issues, there was strong support for state-level “Dream” acts allowing children of illegal immigrants to attend colleges on in-state tuition, and 61 percent disapproved of more border fencing. It is the Latino vote that will determine the outcome of the 2012 election, as evidenced by the fact that they helped flip Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico to blue states in 2008, cementing Obama’s win.

I am still on the fence about whether or not I plan to vote—the option for a suitable candidate just isn’t there. But the more I hear about these draconian immigration policies from the GOP candidates, the more inclined I’ll be to forget about Obama’s broken promises on closing Gitmo, on renegotiating NAFTA, on getting our troops home. If it’s between a candidate whose racist policies include changing the 14th Amendment and putting up electric fences to keep the poor brown people out, I will vote for the lesser of the evils and hope that he’ll fulfill his promises in the second term.

Related posts:

1. Paradoxical System Both Depends on Immigrants and Oppresses Them
2. 1L Proposes New Framework For Immigration Discussion
3. Arizona Immigration Bill Has Several Costly Implications

The general perception of the human rights lawyer is one who is “out there” – focused on ‘other’ places and peoples on issues such as torture, genocide, and freedom of speech. With a cursory glance at the materials of the major human rights NGOs—from Amnesty International to Human Rights Watch—will see constant reference to political prisoners and international justice, to Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo. But as even these organizations have realized in the last few years, “human rights” is just an expression of the desire to have legally enforceable claims that permit the absolute minimum of human dignity without which no one can begin the much more difficult task in live: leading a good life. And that’s why human rights are not just “out there” – but a vital local issue as well.

Core to human dignity—as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—is the right to work, the right to an adequate standard of living, and the “right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity.” This is exactly what the ‘Occupy’ protests are fighting for—even if the myriad of voices have yet to coalesce around a more concrete set of proposals for change. Like other issues of human dignity affecting the USA—for example Alabama’s criminalization of being Mexican for all intents and purposes—international human rights are at issue. The sense of community and democratic voice that was so admired in the Arab Spring earlier this year was embraced as a fight for human dignity. And yet, that same community fight, democratic voice, and expression of these basic demands for human dignity in the recent ‘Occupy’ protests are generally not seen in the same light, with the same sense of urgency or injustice to be overcome.

This is mainly the fault of us international human rights lawyers. The ‘purity’ of the fight against torture or genocide has too frequently made us scared to enter into the fights for economic justice and those aspects of human dignity where political transformation is the only action that could affect change. It is easy to “name and shame” African dictators or discriminatory medieval practices of mutilation; yet naming and shaming monolithic corporations seems more detached; it seems more “political” to finger Wall Street bankers, Wal-Mart executives or the line of Citigroup managers that have dominated both political parties’ economic advisors for years. Finally, international human rights law’s tools and mechanisms have always been dominated (in the major Western countries at least) with the grand schemes, the macro measures—so the dirty work of protest and day-to-day incremental change has appeared outside our realm of concern.

All that said, the urgency that the invocation of rights can bring to the table could be of great use in the now global ‘Occupy’ protests. The demands are as central to the project of international human rights as are the voices from the Arab Spring—and are linked by a shared and justified rage that many of the basic tenets of human dignity are being denied to so many people. The international human rights lawyer may have sold him or herself short for a feeling of being above politics, but that mirage can begin to end with real engagement with these protests.

What could such day-by-day measures be from a vision of universal human dignity? Exercise your right to assembly, to protest, to make your voice and presence heard. Exercise your freedom of choice—stop banking with the major corporations and make the effort to join a community bank, to use your purchasing power to only buy from responsible companies. Perhaps most of all—realize that international human rights law could and should be part of this movement to transform an economic system that guarantees human rights cannot be fully implemented in this country or any other.

Related posts:

1. ’Dozo Partakes in Occupy Wall Street General Assembly Meeting
2. European Court of Human Rights Gets Lecture from Cardozo Prof.
3. Human Rights Lawyers: Start Your Career Now

This letter is in response to the article in the last issue entitled, “Kosher Policy Shows Respect For Student Diversity,” written by Elyse Patterson. The article says that, “There is a paradox to the schools kosher policy… How then does the school deal with the requirement that there should be no contamination of items used in food preservation, storage and service?”

I thought it would be a good idea to address the issue of how things in Cardozo actually stay kosher. It should be noted that I consulted several Rabbis and did substantial research but there are certainly valid opinions that may disagree with me. These views are my own based on my observations made in Cardozo and how I (as an Orthodox Jew) interpret Halacha – Jewish law. I apologize in advance if I offend anyone with what I write in this article; no harm was meant.

The first issue I would like to address is the microwave situation. Everyone knows that the microwaves labeled “Kosher” have been used for food that is non-kosher probably more often than kosher food. How then could someone wishing to warm up kosher food now use these microwaves? When someone warms food up in a microwave the steam gets imbedded into the walls, and this steam carries small food particles. In Jewish law, these particles can get into future food put in the microwave and can render kosher food non-kosher. The way to avoid this is to double-wrap the food. You may have noticed the large roll of plastic wrap above the “dairy” microwave. One who wishes to keep kosher may put his food in any microwave he wants so long as it is double-wrapped. The basic idea of how it works is that the double wrapping prevents any non-kosher particles from getting into the food rendering it non-kosher.

The next issue is the food sold in the cafeteria, and food brought into Cardozo for events. There is a “Mashgiach” – Kosher supervisor – in the cafeteria whose job is to make sure that all of the food sold in the cafeteria is certified kosher. In addition, there are rules guiding which venders a club can use to order food from their events. This too is overseen carefully.

The final issue I would like to discuss is regarding the Keurig machines. You may have noticed that all of the K-cups sold in Cardozo are certified kosher. However, if a student brings their own K-cup into school and puts it into the machine, it is a serious problem for those who wish to keep kosher for two reasons. First, there is a waiting period for those who keep kosher between meat and dairy (the time varies by custom). If someone puts a K-cup containing dairy in it, it gives the machine a status of dairy equipment. That being said, someone who wishes to drink coffee, or even tea, from the Keurig machine while eating meat, would not be able to do so (but would be able to right after). Even more problematic, however, is that if someone ever used a non-kosher K-cup (although most are kosher, there are several that are not) in the Keurig machine, it renders the whole machine non-kosher. Being honest, the odds that at some point someone put a non-kosher K-cup in the Keurig machines are quite high. Therefore, this can be a serious issue.

Again, I would like to reiterate that the views expressed here are based on information that I have gathered. Specific questions should be addressed to each individual’s Rabbi.

Andrew Weg, 1L

Related posts:

1. Kosher Policy Shows Respect For Student Diversity
2. Student Conflicts with Kosher Policy
3. Cardozo, Through a Critical I

Dear Friends,

Every Cardozo Law School occasion has its own particular flavor, its own unique mood and, as the dean, I have the honor of attending and speaking at many of them.  This fall the Cardozo community came together at two very special events, and I was very proud of the school at both.

On September 12th we met in the lobby of the building on the Fifth Avenue side to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The mood was appropriately somber as classmates of the two Cardozo alumni who lost their lives that day recalled their friends, and as faculty and students who were at Cardozo at that time reflected on how their lives and world views were changed by the events and their aftermath.

Then in October, we learned of the death of Isaac Solomon who was just starting his second year at Cardozo. He was beloved by many in the school, both faculty members and students, and his death shocked us all. I asked that those who knew Isaac come together as soon as possible because I felt it was important that we have a place to share our grief and to hold up and support those in our midst who were clearly devastated by Isaac’s passing. In both those events I saw the spirit of the Cardozo community rise up and unite us, in many cases bringing together classmates, alumni and faculty who may not have shared previous contact.

Current students at the school were not aware that 9/11 had such a devastating and profound impact on their predecessors. The people who came together to remember Isaac didn’t all know each other, but were connected by him.  Over the course of these two gatherings it became clear just how connected we all are—both to those who we share the building with daily as well as the broader Cardozo community that reaches far beyond our Greenwich Village home.

I was inspired by the sense of care and the willingness to listen to and absorb each other’s stories. Both events were difficult, but both allowed the humanity of our community to shine. And both brought tears of sorrow along with hugs of support. To me there was poignancy in the words spoken at both events, and it was good to see how many faculty and students found a common language to share their ideas about how we move forward as a community in times of crisis.

The great majority of our events here are full of joy and excitement and the Cardozo community is marked by a love of sharing ideas, debating key legal issues, and working together on common projects. So many moments at our school bring us together for auspicious occasions such as the holiday toy wrapping party, the Law Revue, the public service auction, and of course, commencement. The difficult moments that we have been through remind me of how important it is to celebrate the joyous occasions as they give us strength to come together when times are hard.

So many moments at our school show off the community in a happier light. One of my favorite such points in the year is at commencement when I ask the graduating class to stand and recognize their families for the support that helped them through their rigorous years of study.

So as Thanksgiving break approaches I want to share with you my gratitude for all of the ways in which this wonderful community shows support and respect for the bonds between us. I hope you will take a moment to think about how blessed we are to be part of a truly great institution, comprised of so many wonderful and caring people.

Sincerely,

Matthew Diller

Dean and Professor of Law

Related posts:

1. Graduating 3L Encourages Students to Build Cardozo Community
2. Dean Diller’s Response
3. 2010 Cardozo Graduates Refused to Shake President Joel’s Hand

This month, the Jurist did something it has never done before: we collaborated with students from another law school for our editorial. Specifically, we co-wrote the editorial with the BLS Advocate, Brooklyn Law School’s student-run news site. Believe us when we say, this was one of the most rewarding experiences we’ve had since joining the Jurist.

Our editorial this month was prompted by the growing public attention drawn to lawsuits filed against several law schools alleging the reporting of misleading post-grad employment statistics. Though Cardozo is not being sued, the frustration at the wider law school community expressed in the form of these lawsuits resonated with many of us at the Jurist.

When we reached out to the staff of the Advocate, and they were enthusiastic about joining in this cause, we knew something special was happening. Two staffs from two law schools worked side-by-side in hopes of attracting more attention to their cause. We hope we have succeeded in this aim.

Working with the Advocate enriched our perspective and focused the nature of our disappointment with the ABA.  Through our conversations, we learned more details about the lawsuits, as the Advocate has been aggressively covering the lawsuits. At our editorial meeting with the Advocate‘s staff, we compared and contrasted the contours of our varying concerns with the ABA’s practices, and arrived at a consensus that satisfied us.

Our collaborative work on this editorial reminded us that we are not alone in the trials and tribulations we experience as law students. Law students benefit most from viewing one another as colleagues, allies, and friends. We hope this is the start of a long relationship with the Advocate, and we’d love to work with other law school newspapers in the future.

Finally, this experience has renewed our faith in the power of numbers.  We are confident that we will reach a wider audience with this editorial, and that readers will give extra weight to this editorial’s words – as they aren’t just ours this time, but the Jurist’s and the Advocate’s.

Till next time,

Sara Liss

Related posts:

1. Letter from the Editor
2. Staff Editorial: Law Students to the ABA: Wake Up, Get off the Sidelines
3. Eat, Pray, Love the Jurist

Our economy is depressed. These are difficult times for all.

While disheartening, we must acknowledge the situation before us. Things have changed in the last few years. Legal jobs are scarce. Law school is hardly a “safe bet” – in fact, it is a perilous one.

In these times, we need an American Bar Association (ABA) that is proactive. An ABA that is present. An ABA that is attentive to the economic climate and what this means for current and future law students.

Instead, as Erik Slepak’s story “ABA Drags Feet in Stopping Law Schools’ Misleading Job Statistics” (see http://www.cardozojurist.com/?p=979) and Warren Allen’s feature article “The Litigating Classes: Taking Their Schools to Court” (see www.blsadvocate.org)  illustrate, the ABA has been reactive when the times call for it to be proactive. We find this deeply disappointing.

Understandably, in past years of economic prosperity, prospective law students weren’t as concerned with post-grad employment statistics. But, in these trying times the stakes are higher. Prospective students want to know: How many graduates have jobs requiring a JD? How many are employed through the law school’s fellowship program? How many have part-time jobs? They have a right to the answers to these questions.

Until two weeks ago, the ABA did not require law schools to provide such information to prospective students. Some law schools voluntarily offered this information to prospective students. But, many other schools opted only to provide rather basic statistics, like percentage of graduates employed nine months from graduation. This figure gives prospective students no sense of how many graduates have part-time legal or non-legal jobs.

While the schools that offered only basic statistics were technically in compliance with ABA standards, their approach was morally questionable. Prospective students should have access to crucial statistics when deciding where to go to law school. Without commenting on the merits of the lawsuit brought by Jesse Strauss and David Anziska, the suit symbolizes warranted frustration. While the ABA may not have required law schools to provide detailed statistics, that is not enough to absolve from blame law schools that provided statistics that were so basic that they were misleading.

As for the ABA, it is clearly behind the times. Instead of directing law schools to provide such information on its own, the ABA only did so after enormous public pressure in the form of open letters from Senators Boxer and Grassley and negative media attention. Such conduct demonstrates lack of initiative, and shows that while the world changes around us, we may be stuck with an ABA that is a few steps behind. That’s unfortunate, and the profession deserves better.

We strongly urge the ABA to ready itself for the future. We encourage it to bring in new faces and distance itself from the law school establishment by minimizing the influence of school administrators. The ABA should be a strong, independent organization that recognizes the plight of prospective and current law students.

A good way for the ABA to start would be to follow up on its promise to examine law schools’ policies regarding merit scholarships. A speedy investigation followed by sweeping reform would be welcomed by prospective and current students alike.

The ABA needs to wake up. A primary cause of this economic disaster was the deceptive practices of the country’s financial institutions. The time to sit back and disinterestedly allow institutions to pursue smoke and mirror tactics has long since passed. We don’t know why the ABA didn’t get this memo, and we don’t much care. All we know is, from here on out, the ABA needs to be ahead of the curve and not behind it.

Related posts:

1. ABA Drags Feet in Stopping Law Schools’ Misleading Job Statistics
2. Power in Numbers: ’Dozo & BLS Collaborate
3. Staff Editorial: YU’s Anti-Gay Rhetoric Unwelcome at Cardozo

What is your practice area?

I handle copyright and trademark litigation for clients in a variety of industries, and also offer commercial litigation and transactional assistance to clients in creative fields like fashion, music, art, etc.

What was your inspiration to go solo, and when did you take the leap?

I started my career as an associate at a 200-lawyer firm.  While the associates were treated very well there, I found that there wasn’t much work in my primary areas of interest — copyright and trademark law.  I had to turn would-be clients away at various points because junior associates generally have no control over their billing rates, and most clients in creative fields can’t afford standard “biglaw” rates.  After sixteen months at the firm, I felt that I understood how the practice of law worked and how the different components of litigation fit together, but I hadn’t been out of school long enough to lateral into an IP boutique.  So going solo seemed like the natural choice.

What kind of resources do you take advantage of to develop business?  To do legal research and other legal services?

Business development is definitely an art, not a science.  Countless books and blogs have been devoted to the subject, and I’ll leave it to them to provide a comprehensive list of “rainmaking” tools.  But at the end of the day, it’s really about forming meaningful relationships with people in or around your target industries, including other attorneys, who can be great sources of referrals; getting visibility through writing, public speaking, and leadership roles at bar associations; and doing good work, so that clients hire you again in the future and also refer their friends and colleagues to you.

The City and State Bar Associations offer a variety of resources for solos, including discounts on necessities like malpractice insurance and online legal research tools.  I’m fortunate to be in a suite with experienced practitioners, which—apart from lowering my monthly overhead—gives me access to the other tenants’ tangible resources, like expensive treatises, and intangible resources, like experience and advice.  Some of the other tenants also offer me contract work from time to time, which is very helpful when a solo is first starting out.

What advice would you give someone who was considering going solo?

I would generally discourage people from going solo straight out of law school, with a couple of caveats.  First, if a fresh law grad spent substantial time in a particular industry before law school and has retained both the knowledge and contacts developed in that industry, opening a solo practice targeting that industry is a potentially viable option.  Also, if one has a close family member who is a solo (or member of a small firm) and can provide guidance and referrals, that obviously makes the venture less risky.  Finally, while reasonable minds might differ, it is probably easier to practice litigation rather than transactional law right out of law school, because the traditional law school curriculum is strongly geared toward litigation.

With that said, I believe that even a short stint a law firm will prove invaluable, if only to see — as I mentioned above — how all of the moving parts work together.  Client development, initial research and fact-finding, how to handle calls with opposing counsel, complaint-drafting strategies, techniques for managing the discovery process and navigating discovery disputes, motion practice, ethical issues, billing practices… These are just a few of the areas that I became comfortable with during my employment at a mid-sized firm.  Of course, I still encounter new situations — quite frequently, in fact — but I think that foundation has given me a level of comfort and competence that your typical fresh law school grad may lack.

What steps should someone take before going solo?

Again, the City and State Bar Associations have excellent resources to guide aspiring solos through the process of starting a firm.  But to hit some of the major points, the would-be solo has to ensure (where possible) that his financial situation is stable and that he can afford to lose money for a while, until his reputation and book of business are established; that he has the entrepreneurial spirit necessary to market to and land clients, and the organizational skills to enable him to keep a practice running without support staff (at least at first); that he has a support network of friends, family, former classmates and co-workers, and others who are informed of his plans and are willing to pitch in to make the new practice a success; and of course, that he has all of the logistical matters taken care of, like insurance, office space (preferably in a suite with other attorneys, for the reasons discussed above), a client trust account, and other things on all of the “how to start your own practice” checklists available online.

Are you able to provide people with advantages that they would not get at a large firm, such as a price break or more individualized attention?

Yes, this was a major reason I left my last firm and also a significant benefit to clients: solos can decide that they want to take on a case for professional development or PR reasons, or that they will offer a discount to a client who can’t pay full freight at the moment, but who is likely to be successful in the near future.  “Biglaw” bureaucracy typically prevents a junior associate from making these types of decisions.  And while the individualized attention given to the client is a benefit to him or her, it’s also beneficial to the lawyer, because it’s much more rewarding to interact with clients on a personal level than to be reviewing documents for a corporate client whose liaison is an in-house attorney you’ve never met — a common situation for junior associates at large firms.

In your opinion, what does the future hold for solo attorneys?

The conventional wisdom seems to be that economic forces are reshaping the legal profession into something of a bell curve, with the large firms getting larger, the small firms getting smaller, and the mid-sized firms slowly vanishing.  This may be overly simplistic, but there’s probably some truth to it.  I believe solos will continue to serve a vital role in providing legal services to clients who could not otherwise afford representation.  That’s not to say one can’t make a good living as a solo, but just as a matter of common sense, one can offer lower billing rates without the burden of an enormous firm infrastructure to support.  Even a solo’s rates won’t be as low as the cost of outsourced legal work (a growing trend), but certain types of solo practices — like litigation-oriented practices — are not easily replaced by someone 15,000 miles away.  Solo attorneys who perform only transactional work will have to be more careful about crafting their practices to withstand this structural change in the industry (as well as the proliferation of websites that offer form documents for far less than any attorney could charge.)  Still, I think there will always be a place for solos of both types.

Related posts:

1. The JDs Strike Back, But Will They Be Winners or Whiners?
2. Three Cardozo Alumni Open Firm, Employ 3L
3. Criminal Defense Clinic Glimpses the Dark Side of Law Enforcement

Holy 1Ls, Batman! The Jurist has been given a boost by the massive influx of 1Ls who joined the staff and are now writing, editing, designing and soliciting ads for the paper. More 1Ls joined the Jurist than the executive board hoped for. (Our sign-up sheet was among the lengthiest at the SBA Club Fair.) And while this group’s strength in numbers is impressive, the passion and determination that they bring is even more impressive. Simply put, I am overjoyed.

There is one cardinal rule about this and all other newspapers: a paper is only as strong as its staff. Our staffers truly are the Jurist’s lifeblood. In this school’s short history there has already been one newspaper, the Cardozo Insider, to die due to a decrease in dedication. You can hold me to the following: That’s not going to happen to the Jurist. I am confident in saying this because each year the paper attracts more 1Ls than the previous year.

As for this group of 1Ls, these guys and gals are good: I’m pretty sure Nathan Maidenbaum can sell ad space in his sleep; James Ng brings extensive experience as a columnist, Angela Chao had us smiling with her solid fact finding; Aaron Ferri helped to fill an immense hole in our layout team; Shane Wax has taken over our hearsay section; Zachary Feinberg looks like he’ll be a presence in the legal review section; Christina Noh continues the Jurist tradition of examining our student government, Spencer Meade has provided the Jurist with its first satirical piece; and we have a core of 1Ls who are strong reporters, reviewers and copy editors. Like I said, impressive.

(By the way, because of the large number of 1L writers we now have, we were able to create a section in this issue of the Jurist of content written by 1Ls for a 1L audience. This is the first time at the Jurist we have done this. The section is called “Community: 1L,” and can be found on page 6).

All this convinces me that the Jurist has a bright future. And that’s particularly important to me at this moment, because soon us 3Ls will be gone. But, while I will be sad about leaving the Jurist, I won’t be concerned: the paper now has enough lifeblood not merely to survive but to thrive. For an outgoing editor-in-chief, there is not a more assuring fact than that.

Keep up the good work, 1Ls.

Sincerely,

Dave Reap

Editor-in-Chief

A

Related posts:

1. Eat, Pray, Love the Jurist
2. Join the Jurist, For More Reasons Than You Think
3. Cardozo Jurist Bake Sale