I just got an pre-invitation for the 54th Annual Fordham Law Alumni Association New York State Bar Luncheon (whew!). Lunch on Friday, Jan 25th starts at 12:30, preceded by cocktails starting at 11:30. Seriously - cocktail hour at 11:30 on a Friday? I definitely picked the right school... :)

Carl Malamud is taking on WestLaw and LexisNexis.

Carl Malamud has this funny idea that public domain information ought to be... well, public. He has a history of creating public access databases on the net when the provider of the data has failed to do so or has licensed its data only to a private company that provides it only for pay. His technique is to build a high-profile demonstration project with the intent of getting the actual holder of the public domain information (usually a government agency) to take over the job.

Carl's done this in the past with the SEC's Edgar database, with the Smithsonian, and with Congressional hearings. But now, he's set his eyes on the crown jewels of public data available for profit: the body of Federal case law that is the foundation of multi-billion dollar businesses such as WestLaw.

There's not much content there yet, but this would be such a welcome development if it takes off. The prices that WestLaw and LexisNexis charge are just outrageous as pretty much exclusive access to this public domain content. 

Thomson used to have a real racket with SEC filings, but the EDGAR database has definitely leveled the playing field. There are still companies out there charging for access to the data, but at least we're able to make our decisions based on the quality of their API and cost of the service instead of a monopoly or oligopoly situation.

If nothing else, this will hopefully force WestLaw and LexisNexis to either open up their services more for the public-domain information or at least drive prices down.

It's finally starting to sink in that I'm done with law school.

After nearly 4 years, I received my J.D. on Sunday as part of Fordham's 100th graduation class. Because we were a "special" class, commencement was held in the Metropolitan Opera next to the school, instead of the usual location at the MSG Theater. (I'll update this post later with pictures).

It was sort of a weird experience for me. I didn't know most of the graduating class - there were only a handful of us who stayed in the part-time program, so most of my friends from 1L already graduated last year. And unlike many of my fellow graduates, I am not going to immediately pursue a legal career. As such, I've decided not to take the bar exam this summer.

You may have noticed that posting was especially light here lately - I promise to change this. Part of the blame falls on finals and all the other things leading up to graduation; the rest is simply that most of my mental cycles have been spent on reflecting and putting things in perspective and figuring out what direction I want to head.

As for what's next, I hope you'll be hearing about that very soon.

Michael Hyatt explains why we should be taking notes. (In both cases, I've included just his "headlines" - for more details, view Michael's original post).

1. Note-taking enables you to stay engaged.
2. Note-taking provides a mechanism for capturing your ideas, questions, and commitments.
3. Note-taking communicates the right things to the other attendees.

More importantly, he offers four suggstions on how to more effectively take notes.

1. Use a journal-formatted notebook.
2. Keep your meeting notes as a running journal.
3. Use symbols so you can quickly scan your notes later.
4. Schedule time to review your notes.

I personally think #3 and #4 are the most important suggestions. I use both techniques extensively both at meetings and at school. Without review, your notes are inevitably trapped as input - and they need to be properly processed. As such, the review is particularly important because it allows you to take thoughts and turn it into reference material and action items. I make it a point to spend an hour or two every weekend cleaning up and processing my notes from the previous week's classes.

Of course, I would change #1 to "use a Tablet PC" - it makes the rest of the tips infinitely easier to implement. OneNote also has a number of built-in flags and offers Outlook integration.

I just read that Stanley Rothenberg passed away.

This is sad news indeed. I took an advanced copyright course with Stanley last semester. His experience is, to say the least, impressive. His knowledge of copyright law was unsurpassed and he was a wonderful teacher. More importantly, as Prof. Patry noted, he was an absolutely wonderful person. He truly was one of the most generous and caring people I have ever met, something evident even in the very short time I knew him. (Interestingly, his son - who I've never met - also went to the same small college).

I'm fortunate to have met and learned from him, and only regret that I won't have that opportunity again. He will be missed, and my prayers go out to his family.

Goodbye, Stanley.

Kevin is still looking for a 12th owner in the third annual BlawgerBowl, a fantasy football league filled with (mostly) legal bloggers.

You don't have to be a legal blogger or law student or lawyer. Maybe the geek community needs more representation?

If interested, drop him (or me) a line.

E.Spat brings us this gem of a rant on legal textbooks.

Dear Mueller and Kirkpatrick,

Your evidence book SUCKS. What's the point of having a problem on every other page if you never give any indication of what the answers are? I am reading your book because I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EVIDENCE. And would you cut it out with the notes that consist entirely of questions? "The court was right, wasn't it, in saying this wasn't hearsay? It would be odd, wouldn't it, if they had decided the other way? It's true, isn't it, that the statement was under oath?" Just TELL US SOMETHING.

Your book makes me want to tear my hair out. No, it makes me want to jump off the nearest bridge, shaking my fist at the sky and yelling, "Damn you, Mueller and Kirkpatrick!" It would be melodramatic, wouldn't it, if I did that?

Having used Meuller last semester, I can empathize... and I've ranted about this in the past too.

Many legal textbooks are 1,000 pages of cases, often with very little additional insight and questionable originality under Feist. They cost close to $100 and probably weigh 5 pounds. It especially pisses me off when you have a separate textbook and casebook.

In the past, I just downloaded PDFs for any of the cases to my tablet. The only challenge is when they tell you to turn to page x - but then, my copy is searchable so I can easily find what I need.  Three of my four classes this past semester didn't have textbooks, partially because there are no textbooks yet covering the cases we read.

The other was actually pretty good.  It wasn't just a list of cases - it added additional value by analyzing issues and answering questions instead of just raising them.

I mean, really, legal casebooks are worthless and unnecessary. Why does the legal profession love paper so much?

Sorry that things have been so quiet here, but there was a perfect storm which has (just about) passed.

Work has been busy as we near deployment of a project I've been working on for the past six months. Things should settle down a bit once we get this out the door.

School is almost over for the summer. I finished my three papers last week, and when I complete my Advanced Trademark takehome this weekend I'll have three years of law school behind me. (Finally - light at the end of the tunnel!)

I also moved this past weekend. Packing and unpacking is less than fun but I'm excited about the new place. We're just about settled.

I'm behind on my rss reading, but I have a few things I want to post. I'm also working on a few side projects, including a complete redesign of this site. Stay tuned.

I'm fairly excited about the classes I'll be taking this spring, which is good considering how bored I've been lately of this whole law school thing.

Mondays will be Advanced Copyright and Mass Media & Internet Law. Thursdays are Cybercrimes, which sounds like a pretty cool class.

Tuesday night is still up in the air. I'm enrolled in Mergers & Acquisitions right now, but I'm considering taking Advanced Trademark instead. I'm certainly more insterested in the latter, but I think M&A will be good for me to know better ( since I work at an Investment Bank now and have dreams of starting my own something later ).  I may put off M&A until the fall though since it is offered both semesters while Trademark is only in the spring.

This leaves me with 3 papers and only 1 test - or, if I decide to take Advanced Trademarks, 4 papers and no tests. It's going to be an interesting, but busy, semester.

A good op-ed today (via Jeremy) about the nomination of Harriet Miers.

Even a star quarterback with years of high school and college football under his belt takes years of experience and hard knocks to develop the knowledge and instincts needed to survive in the NFL. The Supreme Court is the big league of the legal profession, and Ms. Miers has never even played the judicial equivalent of high school ball, much less won a Heisman Trophy.

Ms. Miers would be well qualified for a seat on a court of appeals, where she could develop a grasp of all these important issues. She would then have to decide what role text and original meaning should play in constitutional interpretation in the context of close cases and very difficult decisions. The Supreme Court is no place to confront these issues for the very first time.

I mean, you would think that after the FEMA debacle he might want to pick someone highly qualified. Roberts was a start. With this one, I'm just speechless.

More food for thought: Bush once described Miers as a "pittbull in size six shoes". (Let's look beyond the thinly veiled sexism here for a moment...).  I don't know about you, but when I think "pitbull", I think stubborn, tenacious and loyal. While this probably makes for a great defense attorney, these aren't the characteristics I would typically look for in a Supreme Court Justice. (I would much prefer objective and well-reasoned!)

Half-cocked adds:

Definitely one of the most bizarre nominations I've ever seen especially only weeks after another crony appointee botched the federal relief effort after Katrina and then blatantly committed perjury in front of the partisan congressional hearings last week. One of the big differences between the Clinton Administration and the current one is that Clinton's crony appointees wound up in the dark recesses of the Commerce Dept. or HUD where they couldn't do a whole lot of damage. Bush's wind up on the front lines.

Jeremy also posted some great commentary yesterday. Choice quote:

She ran the Texas Lottery Commission, which sounds a lot like the Arabian Horse Show, or whatever it is that Michael Brown ran. Was Michael Brown's demonstrated incompetence not enough to prove that maybe, just maybe, the President's friends are not the best people to be in top positions in this country?

My theory? Roberts was the ultimate nominee, so anyone who gets nominated next is going to pale in comparison. So W purposefully puts out an unqualified candidate that he probably doesn't expect Senate approval on. If she does manage to get confirmed, great. If not, at least his next nominee is compared to Miers and not Roberts.

Or maybe Bill Maher is right... he just doesn't know anyone else. Can't you just picture him sitting there on the couch, trying not to choke on a pretzel while coming up with a second nominee? "Hey, Harriet's a lawyer! Can't she do it? She even has a brother named Jeb!"

More (serious?) discussion is available through SCOTUSBlog's roundup.