Tag Archives: Legal Education

Fashionably great

Originally posted 2012-10-25 14:01:10. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

I had a fabulous time, if you will, as a panelist and participant in last night’s Fashion Lawyer Marketing CLE at Fordham Law School’s Fashion Law Institute.  I certainly learned far more than I taught, but of course, that makes sense, considering that I was only one-third of the panel.  Attendance was so good that people even sat in the front row!  I didn’t even see people looking at their smartphones.  (Someone said that’s because there’s no signal in the room, but that’s just crazy talk.)

Fashion Law Ethics Panel - Fordham FLISome highlights:

The fascinating and insightful Professor Jeff Trexler moderated, and first called on Bernice Leber, who besides having done everything a lawyer can do right in a career has also been the president of the New York State Bar Association.  She walked briefly through the history of lawyer advertising regulation and laid out the standards that apply today, mostly focusing on the attorney advertising rules in New York (many of which are her handiwork!) but without failing to address the complex nature of multi-jurisdictional and online practice in our era.  Bernice also discussed specific cases that have come before ethics panels and acknowledged that applying the standards in a social-networking, multimedia, branding-branding-branding world can be tricky.

I spoke next.  Obviously I spoke about myself.   In other words, I acknowledged the fact that I was invited to participate in the panel in part because I am considered a “success” a “branding” my practice among fashion lawyers — having come to terms with the fact that I probably really am a “fashion lawyer,” just kind of a lumpy one — and that it probably does “work” for me.  But I made a point of discussing how conflicted myself is about all this myself-talking-about.  Believe me, I am.  It’s almost embarrassing, really.  Indeed, I said, (a) I’m not sure what it really means to say that all this @roncoleman “branding” “works,” in terms of “fashion” clients; (b) what I do on this blog and in social networking is, to put it mildly, not for everyone; (c) what I do here is certainly not for everyone who wants to represent major fashion houses or the other big-money parts of the fashion “industry,” but that (d) people who represent smaller clients in design, retail and other parts of that business are also fashion lawyers, and … that’s okay; (e) unfortunately, while there are opportunities in marketing to and serving such clientele, the first part is easier than the second if you don’t have bona fide experience — ideally representing Big Fashion for a meaningful period of time, as I have been privileged to do — and that (f) yeah, I know, that experience is not so easy to get these days.  By the end of my presentation I managed to ensure that not one participant would get any ideas about sending me a resume.

Not so the next speaker, the highly tall and distinguished and stentorian and charming Ted Max, who did not hesitate to reinforce my point that we way we do things here at LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® is not for everyone.  Ted recommended the approach of being really successful instead, and discussed fashion lawyer “branding” in the broader sense of career development — Read More…

Click me

Originally posted 2010-03-09 20:56:18. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Best of 2012: Fashionably great

Originally posted October 25, 2012.

I had a fabulous time, if you will, as a panelist and participant in last night’s Fashion Lawyer Marketing CLE at Fordham Law School’s Fashion Law Institute.  I certainly learned far more than I taught, but of course, that makes sense, considering that I was only one-third of the panel.  Attendance was so good that people even sat in the front row!  I didn’t even see people looking at their smartphones.  (Someone said that’s because there’s no signal in the room, but that’s just crazy talk.)

Prof. Jeff Trexler, Bernice Leber, your blogger, Ted Max

Some highlights:

The fascinating and insightful Professor Jeff Trexler moderated, and first called on Bernice Leber, who besides having done everything a lawyer can do right in a career has also been the president of the New York State Bar Association.  She walked briefly through the history of lawyer advertising regulation and laid out the standards that apply today, mostly focusing on the attorney advertising rules in New York (many of which are her handiwork!) but without failing to address the complex nature of multi-jurisdictional and online practice in our era.  Bernice also discussed specific cases that have come before ethics panels and acknowledged that applying the standards in a social-networking, multimedia, branding-branding-branding world can be tricky.

I spoke next.  Obviously I spoke about myself.   In other words, I acknowledged the fact that I was invited to participate in the panel in part because I am considered a “success” a “branding” my practice among fashion lawyers — having come to terms with the fact that I probably really am a “fashion lawyer,” just kind of a lumpy one — and that it probably does “work” for me.  But I made a point of discussing how conflicted myself is about all this myself-talking-about.  Believe me, I am.  It’s almost embarrassing, really.  Indeed, I said, (a) I’m not sure what it really means to say that all this @roncoleman “branding” “works,” in terms of “fashion” clients; (b) what I do on this blog and in social networking is, to put it mildly, not for everyone; (c) what I do here is certainly not for everyone who wants to represent major fashion houses or the other big-money parts of the fashion “industry,” but that (d) people who represent smaller clients in design, retail and other parts of that business are also fashion lawyers, and … that’s okay; (e) unfortunately, while there are opportunities in marketing to and serving such clientele, the first part is easier than the second if you don’t have bona fide experience — ideally representing Big Fashion for a meaningful period of time, as I have been privileged to do — and that (f) yeah, I know, that experience is not so easy to get these days.  By the end of my presentation I managed to ensure that not one participant would get any ideas about sending me a resume.

Not so the next speaker, the highly tall and distinguished and stentorian and charming Ted Max, who did not hesitate to reinforce my point that we way we do things here at LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® is not for everyone.  Ted recommended the approach of being really successful instead, and discussed fashion lawyer “branding” in the broader sense of career development — Read More…

The law school crackup

Ron Coleman on the Law School Bubble - Mishpacha magazineI haven’t written a super whole bunch about the question of attending law school here lately, but I have written.

But then there’s what Elie Mystal has written at Above the Law.

It’s strong medicine, but if you or someone you care about is considering, as Elie puts it, “get[ting] off the turnip truck and apply[ing] to law school,” you’ve got to read it, bookmark, and understand it.

Here are some highlights:

You know that you are selling a substandard product when you start trying to blame “bloggers” as the reason people are refusing purchase your bill of goods.

Before going any further, let’s be clear that Elie was certainly not talking about the LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® blogger!  Because the mood here is mainly about the fun, exciting and glamorous life that is the law!  Of course he wasn’t.  Anyway, I digress:

Lawrence E. Mitchell, the dean of Case Western Reserve University Law School, took to the Op-Ed page in the New York Times to defend the value proposition of going to law school. Mitchell would have you believe that the media — which only recently started asking law schools to provide evidence that legal education was worth the exorbitant prices schools charge for it — has unfairly and “irrationally” dissuaded the brightest students from attending law school. He writes: “The hysteria has masked some important realities and created an environment in which some of the brightest potential lawyers are, largely irrationally, forgoing the possibility of a rich, rewarding and, yes, profitable, career.”

To be clear, the argument here is that some of the BRIGHTEST potential lawyers are acting “irrationally” by not going to law school, which I suppose leaves only some of the not-brightest potential lawyers as the ones who still believe op-eds from law school deans touting the value of law school.

Mitchell’s problem is actually quite common among law school deans. In fact, Mitchell unintentionally captures the basic disconnect between law students and the deans that take their money: the facts Mitchell wants people to focus on when they are considering going to law school are not the facts that matter to people when they graduate from law school.

And the reason law school applications are on the way down is that the brightest potential lawyers are starting to understand the difference…. [Quoting from Mitchell:] Read More…

Clinically insane?

Originally posted 2010-02-26 11:18:14. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Walter Olson is seeking “reports from the field” on the subject of law school clinics:

If blogging has been lighter than usual, one reason is that I’ve been racing forward on my new book on law schools and their influence, tentatively entitled Schools for Misrule: Legal Academia and an Overlawyered America, which is in the catalogue for Winter/Spring (a year hence) from Encounter Books. I reached first draft in December and am rapidly whipping that rough copy into something closer to final shape.

My original nickname for the book was Ten Bad Ideas from the Law Schools — and How They Changed The World. We decided to go with something a little more dignified, but the book still tries to answer the underlying question of why so many bad ideas — and certain kinds of bad ideas, especially — keep emerging from the law schools. . . .

One of my chapters takes up the now-ubiquitous phenomenon of law school clinics in which students represent outside clients, sometimes in “cause” litigation and sometimes not. I trace the origins of this movement (a big philanthropic push from the Ford Foundation made the difference), the resistance it met from law-school traditionalists and its eventual triumph, as well as some of its present-day manifestations, which are not always those foreseen by the circa-1970 visionaries who started the programs. The chapter is pretty good as is, I think, but I’d like to add a little more illustrative detail about the clinics, especially vignettes from the early years shedding light on what it was expected they would accomplish in changing society (a subject that isn’t as well documented on the web as I’d like). Responses can be made in comments or by email to editor – at – overlawyered – dot – com.

“I’d like to add a little more illustrative detail about the clinics, especially vignettes from the early years shedding light on what it was expected they would accomplish in changing society”–that’s certainly an interesting question.  Around 1970 I wasn’t even doing such a good job of changing my t-shirt.  But if anyone that crust does read this blog and has any insights, let Walter know.

Law school and you

Ron Coleman in Mishpacha Magazine The server logs confirm that some readers of my monthly Mishpacha (the “Jewish family magazine”) column* are curious about this blog and its author, and find themselves reading these words.  Welcome!

Why this month?  My latest column, in the June 27th edition of the magazine, was called “Pop Goes the Law School Bubble,” and focused on the all-but-hopeless employment prospect for law school graduates in the foreseeable future, which seems to have captured a bit of attention.  Law students or prospective law students who got here because of the topic of that column may be interested in a more detailed and, it appears, “prophetic” piece on the same subject I published in Student Lawyer magazine in 1995 called “Go Home.”

The Princeton Review Pre-Law Companion, which I mentioned in the Mishpacha article, is indeed out of print but readily available for cheap at Amazon.  It’s outdated in some respects but, as I said, it is cheap.

And for those already in for a penny and pounding away for the bar exam — here’s some encouragement!

* These are never available on the magazine’s website — don’t ask me why; some can be found on my firm’s website, however.