Fill out this form to add a new comment.
|
What's next |
Jul 22, 2009, 8:05 PM |
| #1
|
What's next, the 9th Circuit charging people to work for Kozinski?
|
– Anonymous (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
yikes |
Jul 22, 2009, 8:21 PM |
| #2
|
These "clerks" won't be able to claim the same clerkship credential as people who got regular, paid clerkships, right? Otherwise, this immensely devalues regular clerkships. Ugh.
|
– Anonymous (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
@ yikes |
Jul 22, 2009, 8:51 PM |
| #3
|
Wow... Always putting a $$$ to your prestige-whore resume. You should be looking at this as a way to reduce your work load, so you have more time to suck on Livingston's strap-on.
|
– Anonymous (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
bad idea |
Jul 22, 2009, 9:30 PM |
| #4
|
all around.
|
– Anonymous (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
Totally worth it |
Jul 23, 2009, 1:16 AM |
| #5
|
If you can afford it, this would probably be worth it. And, Yikes, these people ought to be able to put the same cred on their resume; they are working for FREE. So, even if they don't quite have grades as good as yours--though I would predict that the people who get the jobs won't be totally TTT--the fact that they are making a significant financial sacrifice entitles them to the resume line, IMO. And I say that as a future paid COA clerk, so, if anything, my incentives are aligned with yours.
|
– Anonymous (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
disagree |
Jul 23, 2009, 9:21 AM |
| #6
|
There is a world of difference between a paid term clerk and a volunteer clerk. It should be noted on their resume that the position is volunteer. As an employer, I would view it as unethical not to.
|
– Anonymous (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
Resume |
Jul 23, 2009, 10:18 AM |
| #7
|
I definitely think that this merits a normal "clerkship" line on the resume. Why on earth would it not? It's not like you normally put down your salary on your cv. If you calculate that working for free for a whole year is better in the long run for you, you should at least be able to call it a clerkship.
|
– Anonymous (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
agree to disagree |
Jul 23, 2009, 10:35 AM |
| #8
|
This scheme is only further encouraging elitism in the legal field. only those individuals with financial resources to do this for a year will be able to accept.
|
– Anonymous (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
deferred means paid |
Jul 25, 2009, 11:07 PM |
| #9
|
I think people are misunderstanding here, it looks like the intent is to get clerks who are being paid by their law firms to do the work. It's not like they are actually working for free or only those financially secure enough would do this.
And whether or not they are "clerks" for resume purposes depends on whether they do the same work as normal clerks. If so, then obviously yes. If not, then obviously no.
|
– Anonymous (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
um... no |
Jul 26, 2009, 12:06 AM |
| #10
|
If they are getting paid by their law firm, this should be disclosed on their resume.
|
– Anonymous (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
What do you want them to do? |
Jul 31, 2009, 9:14 AM |
| #11
|
Why do you deserve the greater credential? Almost all of these people will have strikingly similar credentials to the ones that got you the position in the first place. What's next, bright, unemployed people with nothing to do will try to volunteer some time to help their country? For shame.
|
– Anonymous (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
2005 |
Jun 1, 2011, 7:11 PM |
| #12
|
YMMD with that asenwr! TX
|
– Jaydee (Unregistered)
|
| |
| |
|