I was going to write a post like this myself today, when I found that Scott Morgan (@drugblogger) had just written this for the Huffington Post.

Remember that you have a right to say no. Generally speaking, police aren’t your friends, and they will look for any reason to arrest you.

In any case, I see that I get a lot of people coming here by making inquiries about Widener Law, T4, etc.

I started at Widener Law in 2005 and ended up transferring to Temple Law after completing my 1L. Naturally, some of have said “You transferred to the higher ranked school! It had to be better! Jordan, you’re a prestige whore!”

Well, I’m gonna lay the truth down on you…

I transferred to Temple because I didn’t like living in Wilmington; I wanted to live in Philadelphia. Plus, my wife was accepted to graduate school at Temple the year I transferred. It had nothing to do with going to a T1 or a T4. Temple was also a little cheaper, even though Widener had awarded me a nice scholarship. I had applied to two schools – Temple and Penn, both because they were in the city. Penn rejected me, which in hindsight, I’m happy about because elite law schools aren’t cheap.

In my opinion, it doesn’t really matter where you go to law school unless your heart is set on getting a job in BIGLAW and becoming a partner, you want to be a law professor, or you want to be a Supreme Court Justice. (If that’s your goal, go to Harvard.) However, I’m sure you’ve read, but no law school can guarantee you a job in BIGLAW. Personally, I just wanted to be a lawyer, so where I went to school didn’t matter as long as I could sit for the bar exam.

For everyone else, I’m still of the opinion that it doesn’t matter where you go to law school – T1 or T4. 95% of the time I don’t even know where my colleagues went to school.

Now, I’m glad that I graduated from Temple Law. We have a great football program, and I had a great experience during the two years I spent at Temple Law. Temple’s career office was also top notch, and very innovative about matching law students with smaller law firms that might not participate in OCI programs. But believe it or not, I’m also glad I started at Widener. Widener offered a top notch legal education. I don’t think transferring affected my job prospects one way or another, either. I think employers after 1L looked at my grades from Widener and work experience more than the fact I was at a T1 school. I never felt “held back” because US News & World Report thought Widener should be ranked “lower” than other regional Philly schools.

What I particularly liked about Widener is that they have the moxy to fail people out. I’m still friends with many people who failed out, and they’re usually the first ones to say “I wasn’t cut out to be a lawyer.” It’s hard to make the cut at Widener, and because of that, I think they create damn good lawyers. If you don’t fail out after 1L at Widener, I’m confident that you’re not a total moron, because it wasn’t easy.

Without going into detail, consider law school admission criteria: college grades (where you get points just for participating unlike law school), LSAT scores (a purely objective multiple choice test, compared to tests in law school exams which are subjective and test your ability to communicate clearly), and the “strength” of a person’s college undergraduate institution (whatever that means). US News & World Report obviously takes into account how “competitive” admission is when ranking a law school. However, none of what they measure have anything to do with practicing law. The practice of law requires critical thinking, tenacity, ability to think on one’s feet, thick skin, public speaking skills, organization, attention to detail, and a whole bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with the law school admission criteria.

So, at the very least, I’m not surprised that Widener Law exceeded expectations for passing the bar, because the LSAT is a terrible indicator about a person’s legal acumen.

In my experience, smaller law firms will actually take a regional graduate over someone from a higher ranked school. For example, at my first job, the partners said their biggest hesitation was that I appeared to be too “Philadelphia based” to want to truly commit to a small firm in the suburbs. James said something along the lines of “Lawyers will ultimately practice near where they live. I’d be shocked if Jordan wasn’t back in Philadelphia within two years.” At the time, I didn’t think James knew what he was talking about (a running theme here). However, I convinced them it was okay because I grew up in the suburbs. Three years later, James was absolutely right. I grew tired of commuting to the ‘burbs and I wasn’t willing to move away from the city. Most of my contacts were in Philly, and they didn’t always like the idea of hiring a suburban firm. In my opinion, a suburban based law firm will probably be better off hiring someone with ties to the area for that reason. When I left my suburban firm to work for a firm in Center City Philadelphia, one of the reasons they hired me is because I was so “Philly based.” I have contacts in the area, own a house in the city, and didn’t appear to be a flight risk. They didn’t care about my grades or where I went to law school – it was based on experience, the interview, what I could bring to the table, etc.

When I started my own practice, I relied heavily on my local contacts, family, and friends for business. Shockingly, none of my clients have ever asked where I went to law school and how US News and World Reports feels about it. If anything, I’m glad I didn’t spend my life going to private schools setting me up for an “elite” law school, because I can relate to a wide variety of people.

Something else to consider: not a lot of people get into BIGLAW, perhaps 10% of a graduating class. Of those who do, the majority of them do not make partner. There is a good chance you’ll be in “small law” (even if you start in BIGLAW). Most lawyers end up working for a small law firm, a government agency, or hanging a shingle. While an “elite law school” may be important for partnership at BIGLAW, the reality is it probably won’t apply to you. In addition, if you have clients, I doubt any law firm will care where you went to school. Even if you’re with a firm and want to make partner, would you rather promote the guy who brings in $1,000,000 a year of business, or the guy who went to a fancy law school? No brainer here. A lot more goes into what you’ll do, and who you will do it with, than what Tier US News & World Report places your law school in.

So, my advice is this if you’re worried about going to a “low ranked” law school: go to a law school in an area of the country where you want to live. For example, don’t go to American University, knowing you want to work in Philadelphia, just because it’s “ranked higher” than Temple. On the other hand, don’t go to Temple if you’re dead set on working in Hawaii. (wish I would have thought of that seven years ago…)

Try and keep your debt minimal, and to keep your grades up.

Try and get substantive work experience at a law firm, even if it’s not a “prestigious” one. Nothing will scare a small law firm more than “Um, what is a Complaint? What are interrogatories?” Try to learn some basics of litigation so you don’t give the impression that you’ll be a time sink of training. (Don’t worry, you will be. I clerked all through law school and still didn’t know jack coming.) Working will also help you generate contacts in the industry who will refer work to you.

Make as many contacts as you can that are other lawyers if you’re worried about finding a job. One example – when I left my first firm, I had a hand in hiring my replacement. (at a small firm, you’ll do everything). We put an ad on Craigslist and got too many resumes to sort through. I called around and asked Leo if he knew anyone good who was looking. Leo said he did, and eventually my former firm hired that person based on Leo’s recommendation. Networking is random like that. If you know enough people and ask around, there’s a chance something might just fall in your lap. And get this — my former firm didn’t care where the new hire went to law school, just that they were likable, enthusiastic, and interested in their work. Didn’t even ask for a transcript. (and they didn’t ask for a transcript when I started there in 2008). Shocking, I know.

The practice of law is a marathon, not a sprint. You could make six figures right out of the gate and get laid off. You could start out in small law making $35k a year and then land a huge personal injury case. You might start in family law and then switch to commercial litigation at some point. Ultimately, I firmly believe that one’s career is decided by reputation. Not by law school.

On the same note, don’t go to law school because you think it’s a ticket to easy money right out of the gate. Don’t whine that your law school tricked you into going, either. Those who graduate from a T4 and pass the bar exam are still called “lawyer”. What you do with that is entirely up to you. It takes many years to develop a lucrative practice where good clients will pay you big bucks to represent them. Anyone who thought otherwise chose to fool themselves.

If you’re curious, most of my friends from Widener Law are gainfully employed in the legal profession. Same with my friends from Temple Law. Most of the weird or annoying people are not.

Finally, this might shock you, but most real lawyers don’t even follow US News & World Report law school rankings. I can’t even tell you where my own law school is currently ranked. I have a general idea of where the local law schools fall, and they’re all pretty much the same to me. However, I couldn’t tell you what tier most out of state law schools are in, except maybe Harvard and Cooley. Law school rankings are stuff that students talk discuss frequently. Lawyers, not so much.

So, that’s my two cents. I don’t think graduates of Temple, Rutgers, or Villanova graduates have a huge advantage over Widener graduates just  because of US News & World Report’s rankings. I can tell you that you’ll get a good legal education at Widener. What you do with it, well, that falls on you.

Veritas, Unitas, Caritas: It Means God Hates Gay People

Dear Villanova University:

I’ve always believed that we should “[s]peak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:8

However, I am concerned that you are getting away from your Catholic roots, based on some recent current events.

For example, the university has consistently allowed those who advocate for the death penalty, foreign wars, for giving less aid to the needy (we call them Republicans where I’m from) to speak on campus — even though these views fly in the face of Catholic Social Teaching (what I minored in at Villanova). Shockingly, Villanova has even allowed people to speak on campus who are against providing universal healthcare and opposed to providing people with a living wage. In fact, Villanova even sponsors organizations that openly supports all of these very anti-Catholic beliefs, and even allows them to use campus money!

Now, I’ve always assumed that Villanova only allowed such hypocrites to remain on campus in the interest of freedom of speech. Sure, the Church teaches that Catholics should strive to help the poor, promote accessible healthcare, and to oppose the death penalty. And just because some misguided souls choose to defy these very clear Church teachings on important social justice issues, as an academic institution, we have to be tolerant of their misguided beliefs. As much as we know their views are wrong and downright mean spirited,  it’s important to allow them to hold these views and discuss them openly. Even though Jesus would probably find them appalling. I mean, the Bible was pretty clear that: “He who despises his neighbor is guilty of sin; but happy is he who has mercy on the poor!” (Proverbs 14:21)

That’s why I was a bit surprised that an openly gay artist, Tim Miller, was banned from performing on campus without a good explanation. Sure, homosexuality isn’t exactly endorsed (sometimes) by the Catholic Church, but the University has allowed organizations like the College Republicans to remain on campus despite ideals that are contrary to Catholic social justice.

I think it’s worth noting that the Bible spends a great deal more time discussing tolerance, charity, and love of your fellow man than it does condemning homosexuals. And plus, we all know that Leviticus said a lot of silly shit, most of which is now disregarded. So you’ll have to pardon my candor, but the whole anti-gay thing is kind of perplexing to me because I’ve always thought that “God does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.’ But I suppose the opinion of honorable men may differ.

In any case, this leaves me a few questions: why is it okay only for some organizations to have beliefs that the Church doesn’t agree with to remain on campus, while banning gay people like Mr. Miller? If you’re going to forbid gays from teaching classes at the University because their sexuality doesn’t jive with Catholic Social Teaching, shouldn’t you also ban anyone who supports the death penalty, opposes universal healthcare, or eats shellfish? I know that would also ban, well, about half the students and a good deal of the clergy. But it’s all good because God loves us and is forgiving.

But more importantly, wouldn’t you agree that who a person chooses to have sex with isn’t nearly as important as striving a world that is just for everyone…? And wasn’t it God himself who said: “Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise, says the Lord, I will protect them from those who malign them.” Psalm 12:5

Given that’s the case, why does the University sponsor organizations openly opposed to social justice while banning artists who are openly gay? Why is who a person chooses to sleep with more offensive than those who are opposed to Catholic social teachings focused on helping the needy?

And really, shouldn’t we stand up for the weak, like our openly gay brothers and sisters? And all of our gay brothers and sisters forced to remain in the closet for fear of repercussion? Does it really matter who they choose to sleep with?

Lord knows the University is tolerating some downright anti-Catholic stuff. The important stuff.

So if we’re going to break the rules, let’s at least break the stupid ones.

I’d appreciate a response.

Sincerely,

-Jordan Rushie, Liberal Arts, Class of 2005

[Update] Father Peter has responded to all the negative criticism. (For the record, I like Father Peter a lot. He’s a good dude. That said…)

I read Father Peter’s response as: “Dude, we don’t care that you’re gay, it’s just that you’re acting like a fag.”

Don’t be gay, Sparky. Don’t be gay!

[Second Update] Bryn Mawr college did the right thing and decided to host Tim Miller. I guess Bryn Mawr’s administration feels that their students are mature enough to handle adult content…

Click the image to make it bigger.

This is especially funny because he told the court he tried REALLY hard and did a REALLY good job. According to Paragraph 21- 22 of Rakofsky’s reply papers:

In December of 2011 I filed an elaborate, carefully designed, proposed Order to Show Cause (which is now before this Court). Supreme Court deemed it to be “incomprehensible” and declined to sign it.

…

Each time I spent an enormous amount of time drafting documents; each time I incurred substantial expense to prepare, copy and serve documents; and each time relief was denied.

Maybe next time the court will give him a gold star for effort.

I had been in practice for a little over a year. At one point, my boss James had asked if I would be up to take my first deposition on my own. Awesome. I told him I would be, and I’m thrilled to be taking on more responsibility. James told me to read the rules carefully, read some old transcripts, and to come to him with questions. He stressed how important the preparation was. “People think that they can just wing it at depositions, but I don’t. Maybe I’m just not that smart.  I think you should come up with a spreadsheet of permissible objections, because opposing counsel has a reputation for being both a good litigator and a ballbuster. He’s going to test you.”

Unfortunately, I got busy. Looks like the preparation would have to be condensed. I had sat in on a few depositions so I knew the drill, or so I thought. The night before the deposition, I read a few other deposition transcripts and came up with an outline. Depositions didn’t look like rocket science from reading old transcripts. You ask questions. How hard can that be? I knew the facts of the case and had an idea of what we wanted to get out of this witness. Maybe I should discuss it with James, but he’s always so critical of me. Best avoid James’s criticism.

Whatever, I got this…

That morning, opposing had counsel sized me up instantly when I walked through the door. Fresh haircut and a pressed suit that practically had the tag on it. He knew I was a baby lawyer.  Hopefully he’d be nice and pick up that this was my first deposition.

We made pleasantries for a few minutes. Yeah, great Eagles game, yeah riding SEPTA is terrible, yeah the weather. Alright, seems like a decent guy…

Then the room went quiet. Everyone was looking at me. Opposing counsel broke the silence:

“Usual stipulations?”, counsel asked.

“Uh, yeah, sure.” Whatever that means. Just play it cool, he thinks you’re a real lawyer. You can do this, Jordan. Oh God, can he hear my voice cracking? Can he see the sweat on my brow? Deep breath.

The court reporter swore the witness in and the deposition began. I started sweating more and my throat felt parched.

I began by mimicking some of the introductory questions from the old transcripts.“You’re under oath, and you understand that, right? Are you on any drugs today? Is there any reason you can’t testify truthfully?” Okay, I still sound like a real lawyer. Good.

Then we got into the meat and bones of it. Unfortunately, opposing counsel could sense my weakness. He could smell it. He was feeding off it, and he was going to take full advantage of it. Every time I tried to ask a question, there would be a flurry of objections: “Objection to the form! The witness has already answered that question! Further, you’re assuming facts not into evidence, and it calls for hearsay!” At one point, he threatened to call the judge and ask for sanctions if I continued down a line of questioning.

Can he do that? Is that legit? I think these questions are fair, but I’d hate to get the judge involved… I must be asking the questions wrong. Oh God, I’m so green, I have no idea what I’m doing. And they all know it, too. The court reporter, opposing counsel, and the witness. And what’s worse, now the witness is treating me like I’m an idiot. He practically told me my last question was stupid. He chuckled when I asked it.” I started turning red and became visibly frustrated. Why is he doing this to me? Is he some sort of sadistic asshole?

What had seemed so simple last night — ask lots of questions — suddenly didn’t seem so simple. I just wanted to be out of there. I had no idea what was permissible and what was not permissible, what kinds of questions I could ask and what would make a judge angry.

I cut my questioning short. Time to knock off and have a drink after that…

A few weeks later I got an email from James:

“Jordan: I reviewed the Smith deposition transcript. I would appreciate an hour of your time to discuss it. Please mark my organizer with a time you are available this week. Thanks. James.”

James’s emails were always so short and to the point. I could never tell if he was pissed off or if he just wanted to bounce around an idea. Hopefully the latter. I went to see him to discuss…

“Sit down, Jordan. Do you want this American-style or German-style?”

“Um… American-style?”

“Well, I don’t really care what you want. What the hell is with this deposition? It was awful! If I had known you were going to do this bad a job I never would have sent you. This is just… terrible. Bad. And that’s putting it mildly. What happened?”

I was angry. I felt like I had been taken advantage of by an older lawyer with more experience who was a jerk. How could he do this to me?

“James, opposing counsel railroaded me. He was such an asshole. Pardon my French, but a real fucking asshole. I was so nervous and he wouldn’t shut up with objections. Can you believe that? Maybe we should move for sanctions. He screwed me.”

It felt so good to vent. I had been wronged, but we would make it right.

“Oh, I see. It’s all opposing counsel’s fault…”

“Yes! He’s such an asshole.”

James went silent, and then looked at me. His face turned to that of pure and utter disgust, and his demeanor turned to angry.

“Actually”, James said, raising his voice, “it’s your fault. You didn’t read the rules. You had no idea what you were doing, and I can tell from reading the transcript. For instance, you agreed to the usual stipulations, but then he’s objecting on page 27 that you’re ‘assuming facts not in evidence.’ There are standing objections all over the place. On page 33 he’s objecting to hearsay. Hearsay? You didn’t call him on that? You agreed to reserve all objections for trial, but then you let him get away with a hearsay objection? In a discovery deposition! I would ask you why you didn’t stand up to this clown, but from reading this, I don’t think you could have — you had no idea what was going on. Did you bother to read the rules? Do you even know what the usual stipulations are? Did you make a spreadsheet like I told you to?”

“Errr, not exactly. I read the old transcripts you gave me. I saw ‘usual stipulations’, but didn’t know what it meant. I thought everyone just said that.”

“And you didn’t come and ask me what it meant?”

“Um… no.”

“So let me get this straight. You didn’t read the rules and you didn’t ask me anything. You just glanced at a few old transcripts the night before and thought it would be fine. In your first deposition. Who needs to know the rules, right?

What were you thinking?”

“I thought… I just… I don’t know… I’ve seen a few before… I’d just go with the flow, I guess… ask questions… but James, opposing counsel knew I was young, he shouldn’t have been such an asshole! I bet he knew this was my first deposition!”

“Am I supposed to be impressed with that?

How dare you blame someone else for your shortcomings. I don’t give a shit if this is your first deposition or your thousandth. Opposing counsel did what he was supposed to do. You did not, and you’re sitting in my office sniveling like a whining baby, acting like it’s his fault when its yours. You were too big of a wuss to stand up to him because you didn’t know the rules well enough to do it. You’re complaining that he wasn’t nice enough to you, and that he should have been gentle because you’re young. To me that suggests you’re complaining that he didn’t accommodate you. That’s pathetic. Pathetic! It falls on you to prepare appropriately for these things, and no excuse for failure is acceptable. Period.

Older lawyers have no obligation to be nice to you just because you’re young – it falls on you to get up to speed to do your job competently.

Think about this – is opposing counsel supposed to go back to his client and say “I could have kept out important testimony because the kid on the other side had no idea what he was doing, but that would have been mean of me so I didn’t do it”? How could he go back to his client with that? This isn’t about being the nicest guy in the room, it’s about winning football games. It’s about advocating for your clients. The process is “adversarial.” If you expect people to be nice to you, do something else. Because you’re not going to find that in law. And I’m not saying you should never grant an extension or a professional courtesy, but your goal is to win the case – not to make friends.

Blaming your adversary for your lack of preparation shows poor judgment and the wrong attitude on your part. We’re here to represent clients, not to make friends. Make friends on the weekend!

Kid, you’ve got a lot of growing up to do. And if you ever come into my office again and blame opposing counsel, or anyone, for not being “nice” to you because you’re a young lawyer, you are not going to have a job here. I expect you to get up to speed on every assignment and every task, and to be a competent lawyer like you are supposed to.

Now get out of my office. We’ll discuss the mechanics of a deposition later, but I’m too disgusted with you to continue this conversation.

And next time you come to my office, come back as a man, not a child. This isn’t a daycare, it’s a place of business. I’m not here to babysit you.”

After that tongue lashing, I would never “just wing” any proceeding ever again.

I would also never expect anyone — especially not opposing counsel — to be “nice” to me. Even though I’m young. At the end of the day, a lawyer’s job is to win. That goes for everyone. Making friends and being nice would be reserved for the weekends…

Click to enlarge the image. Yes, I made it.

Thank you, 4chan /b/.

For an accused on trial, there’s got to be a whirlwind of emotion.

I can only imagine the feeling, when after months of continuances and delays, the trial finally happens. You’re called to sit next to your attorney, and you sit and listen as the Commonwealth puts on its case.

You hear police testify against you and tell a story that paints you in the worst possible light.

You’re sitting next to your attorney as he cross-examines witnesses, probing the Commonwealth’s case for weaknesses. You try to get his attention as he argues, but he stops you so he can focus on what the witnesses say.

Finally, you hear him argue the facts and the law as best he can – why the Commonwealth hasn’t proven it’s case against you.

You hear him rest. The District Attorney then responds with his own version of facts and the law as he sees it. The DA rests.

The courtroom is silent for a few moments that must feel like an hour. Tension builds as you await the decision. And then out of the judge’s mouth comes the two words that mean your freedom:

“Not guilty”.

(For the defense attorney, it’s a dammed good feeling too).

This case is obviously important to me, since Shane was murdered in my neighborhood. Shane was also a fellow brother in AOH.

It also goes to show the stupidity of some kids and Facebook, as apparently Ryan McManus was just very drunk, and the type of kid who would stab you before he shot you. I’m very relieved to hear that:

The courtroom was filled with friends of Shane Kelly and MaryElise Doyne.

We’ll keep you posted as the matter progresses.

Joseph Rakofsky is the gift that keeps on giving. This is too funny to believe;  you’ll have to see it for yourself. (it takes a second to load so keep your pants on). In this video, Joseph Rakofsky claims to build your case with bricks of “truth, compassion and love.”

Original version of his website found here.

Hopefully I don’t get sued for posting about this… I would just hate for that to happen, as our Terms of Service are pretty goddamn clear that Joseph Rakofsky and friends are not welcome here. We do not like litigious censorious asshats, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.

But if you want to go down that road, Joseph, you know where to find me. (Hint: 2424 East York Street, Suite 316, Phila, PA 19125. Email: jordan[at]fishtownlaw.com).

At my bona fide office. You know, the place where my files are kept, the telephone is answered, mail is received and I can be reached in person and by telephone during normal business hours to answer questions posed by the courts, clients or adversaries and to ensure that competent advice from me can be obtained within a reasonable period of time.

Scott Greenfield, author of Simple Justice, has said goodbye to blogging, which is a travesty. I wasn’t going to do a post about it, but I changed my mind.

A year ago, I didn’t really know what legal blogging was. I thought it was just a sidebar on the side of websites where people wrote short articles to try and generate traffic to their website. In fact, I started buying into the happysphere stuff at one point because I didn’t know any better, and it was everywhere I looked.

Then I met Scott Greenfield, almost purely by chance. A throwback to “old school”, focused on bettering the legal profession and putting clients first.

Little did I know that are bloggers like Scott who write about stuff they care about instead of marketing. You know, stuff that actually matters. I learned more about the practice of law from reading Simple Justice than three years of law school.

Scott’s musings have shaped the way that I look at the profession, and I think for the better. Scott is also the guy who inspired me to start this blog, and to take it in the direction I did. Your daily commentary will be missed.