For those that don’t know what sub-citing is (I didn’t until a week ago) it’s the sometimes tedious process of double-checking every footnote in a given journal article to verify it’s accuracy. It is also a rite of passage for any first year student hoping to crack their way into the journal market. The journals usually hold mass sub-cites early in the fall and spring semesters to expose 1Ls to their work.

I was a little concerned watching all of this take place because I knew that the sub-cite for a journal I was joining, the Journal on Legislation, was taking place the next day. Thus far I had had what I guess is the typical 1L journal picking experience. I had gone to the journal fair, signed up for a bunch that I thought sounded interesting, attended a slew of info sessions, free lunches, and happy hours, then eventually narrowed it to the one that interested me most. I had felt pretty good about my choice, but watching my fellow first year students pore over their texts made me a little nervous about what I had gotten myself in to.

The next day I went to my sub-cite expecting mind-numbing work. I was shocked when the first thing that we did was actually go over the substance of our article and talk about ways that we thought it could be changed. The editors were interested in any feedback that they could relay to the article’s authors. Next came the sub-citing itself. Granted, the activity wasn’t horribly entertaining (you can only flip through so many political science books verifying that facts are correct before you start to go just a little bit crazy). However, it was good to be hanging out with a group of people interested in similar legal issues as me, and to work on a piece of scholarship in its very early stages. Also, I got some decent tips about law school and the legal profession in general from the 2Ls and 3Ls in the group. 

I think one of the benefits of going to a school the size of HLS is the sheer volume of extra-curricular opportunities available. With the massive number of journals, all jockeying for new recruits, I had the flexibility to shop around and find the one that made the most sense for me. This helped turn what could have been a pretty boring endeavor, into a rewarding extracurricular activity.

- Anit

I think journals can be a great source of friendship and camaraderie, because—let’s face it—it can be pretty dry at times, and surviving that can really bring people together. But obviously a lot of people do enjoy it, because Harvard has 16 journals whose leadership is full of 2Ls and 3Ls who have stayed involved semester after semester. I myself accepted two promotions at the end of last year, and to help you understand them I’ll say a little about how journals work.  

Every journal is unique, especially HLPR because at four years old it’s a very young organization still working out its structure and niche. So it’s hard to generalize, but with us, 1L students contribute by joining article teams headed by an Article Editor (usually a 2L) and supervised by a Senior Article Editor (usually a 2L or 3L.) The teams do two rounds of work on an article: a substantive edit for things like thesis and organization, and a technical edit or “subcite” to correct punctuation errors, typos, and citations to sources (including page numbers, formatting, and characterization of the source.) The subcite is one thing pretty much every 1L on every journal will experience, but their substantive involvement varies; I think ours is on the high end.   Loads of other things go into the production of a journal, like solicitations, policy, and (at HLPR at least) even more proofreading by a couple of tech teams headed by Senior Tech Editors and supervised by the journal’s Executive Technical Editor. A lot of this goes on without the knowledge of 1Ls, but none of it could happen without them.  

So anyway, I’ll be serving as an Article Editor and a Senior Tech Editor this year, and I’m pretty likely to be overwhelmed but very excited about contributing to a real publication read by professionals all over the country. (If you visit my journal’s website, you’ll see a picture of Senator Patrick Leahy waving a copy of the issue I edited as a 1L.) My article team is gathering for our substantive edit meeting Sunday, and I hope to pass this same enthusiasm on to them.  

- Lea

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/10/law-students-venture-into-new-field/

Give us a sense of what you’ve been doing since you graduated from HLS.

Since I graduated, I’ve been immersed in elections and voting rights work, and very happily so. Immediately after a clerkship, I drove to Little Rock to volunteer on General Wes Clark’s presidential campaign, with a utility infielder’s role cycling through a fair number of responsibilities in five very short months. I then went to work in Washington as the in-house counsel for America Coming Together, which would become the country’s largest independent voter registration and mobilization operation. When the 2004 campaign cycle was over, I moved up to New York, to woo the woman I’d started dating when we were both 1Ls, with lockers in the basement of Pound Hall; we’ve been married for the last two years, and I still feel unfathomably lucky for every one of those days.

In New York, I joined the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: part think-tank, part advocacy shop, and part nonprofit law firm. I’ve been there ever since, working on voting rights and election administration and redistricting, with a brief leave this past fall to help run the national voter protection program of the Obama campaign. The Brennan Center gives me the chance to conduct original research, to publish for both scholarly and public audiences, to advocate for voting rights policies, to counsel federal and state administrators and legislators, and then to litigate, when all else fails to deliver the change the voters deserve.

What classes or activities exist at HLS for those students interested in public policy? Did you partake in any of them? If so, how do you think they’ve shaped the way you decided to approach your career?

There are countless classes and activities at HLS for anyone interested in public policy, along the spread of the ideological spectrum, and on any substantive topic you might imagine. Actually, one of the biggest surprises for me in the HLS curriculum was the degree to which most of the classes involved public policy to some degree, from first-year torts to the most specialized third-year electives. Clinical courses even more so; there is no better way to get a handle on policy problems than to get some hands-on experience in the area. And now as a practitioner, I’ve got an even greater appreciation for the way in which each and every class informs policy. In public interest litigation, for example, I’m constantly wishing that I’d paid more attention in civil procedure.

As for activities, one of the virtues of an institution the size of HLS is that there are so many active students with varied interests, any three of whom can and will form a club of some kind. So there are avowedly partisan groups, and groups that focus on a public policy subject, and then there are lectures and speakers year-round, not just at HLS but throughout the entire university campus. I was involved in some of these activities — I was active in the Student Public Interest Network, and in the Civil Rights Project, and on the founding board of Harvard’s American Constitution Society chapter, all of which are connected to the public policy world in various ways. There were dozens of other options that friends chose instead. And at least for me, one of the principal benefits of all of these activities was the chance to get to know the other students involved — I spent far more time just talking or hanging out with friends, many of whom now have fascinating policy-related careers, than I did in policy-related activity time.

Having been out in the world of politics and public policy now for a few years, what would you tell someone interested in following a similar path?

Dive in. The single best way to get involved in politics is to volunteer on a campaign; the single best way to get involved in influencing public policy is to find a subject-matter that interests you, find someone who’s working in the area, and offer to help. Your ability and your hard work will be recognized and rewarded  even if it won’t always be recognized immediately. There are many different paths to make a career in public policy possible. Some start off looking for a job in their chosen subject, while others make their policy interest their avocation; some aim for public office, and others prefer to work outside of the government. There is no “best” answer, and the only common thread is that the people who have made the most successful lives in the public policy world have spent an enormous amount of time and energy working on the subjects that interest them most.

Any advice for the incoming class?

Have fun. You’ll have plenty of friends at HLS; spend time with them, and they will be some of your best friends for years afterward. Talk to your professors outside of class, not because it’s the right thing to do, but because they are extraordinary people. Look around enough to find something that really fires you up, something you can get truly passionate about, and stick with it for a while. Make sure that the path you happen to be on at the moment is the path you actually want to be on, and not just the path of least resistance and switch course if you have to. Wander out to the Common on the first night it really snows. Have fun.

What is the public interest auction?
The public interest auction is a fundraiser run entirely by the 1L class that raises money to support students who do public interest work over the summer. We solicit donations from faculty, staff, alumni, parents, students, firms, and local businesses. Some donate money and some donate things to auction off. We receive all sorts of donations – things like Red Sox tickets, gift certificates to restaurants and salons, lunches and fishing trips with professors, cookies and brownies made by the librarians, and a tour of the Northwest Corner Construction project. The auction is one of the biggest social events of the year. Every year the auction has a theme, and we decorate Austin Hall accordingly. This year the theme was “Bright Lights: Bid City” and so the different rooms were decorated as different big cities – London, Paris, and New York.

What has gone into preparing for this event and what have you gotten out of the experience as a co-chair?
Almost all of the 1L class helps out with the auction. We divide the students up by committees and committees mostly help out either by asking for donations, calling alumni and asking them to donate, emailing firms, going door to door in Cambridge, or by helping process the donations and get them ready to sell, or by helping out on the night of the auction. As one of the auction co-chairs, I had the opportunity to work with a group of amazing people to try to plan and coordinate this huge event – it was definitely a  challenging experience for all of us. From coordinating hundreds of student volunteers to keeping track of hundreds of donations, to making sure everything comes together on the night of the auction, being a co-chair was a lot of work, but it was extremely rewarding. It was also a good opportunity to meet new students.

The event is always a lot of fun for students, faculty and staff. What was your favorite part of the evening? Did anything surprise you?
The event was a huge success. My favorite part of the evening was the live auction. Our auctioneers – this year Professors Elizabeth Warren and Jonathan Zittrain – were auctioning off the “right to be – or not be – in the 2010 parody.” The first bidder was the Dean of Students because they gave her a hard time this year in the parody, but then Professor Mann, who bought this item last year, got in a bidding war with Professor Warren and everyone was laughing so hard!

Why should admitted and prospective students seeking a strong public interest community choose Harvard? Why did you?
I think that students looking for a strong public interest community should choose Harvard because they can go anywhere and do anything with a degree from Harvard Law. We are a bigger law school, but as a result, we have so many more options to pick from than other law schools. Good public interest law jobs are really competitive – and since I want one, I’m glad I chose Harvard. I know that the connections and friends that I will make here, with professors and fellow students, will be of benefit for the rest of my life.

Why did you want to transfer to HLS?

The reputation of HLS is incredible, and graduating from HLS opens up opportunities that would be unavailable almost anywhere else. Especially when vying for competitive clerkship positions, being from HLS is a huge plus. So many incredible jurists have graduated from HLS, and even now many of the important decisions that will be shaping our country’s future are being made by HLS alums. I realized in my first year of law school that so many legal developments had their origins at HLS – from either a professor or a student-turned-practitioner, and I wanted to be a part of that environment.

What do you think of HLS so far? Do you have a favorite element?

I am extremely impressed with HLS – it is better than I expected, and I am so happy to be here. I think my favorite element is the atmosphere; we’re all aware of the incredible people who have gone before us as HLS students, and that imparts a sense of gravity. At the same time, there is always so much going on, with HLS involved in so many of the cutting edge legal issues, so there is a sense of bustling excitement. While it is still tempting to slip into the “I’m just trying to get good grades” mode, the atmosphere of HLS is a constant reminder that being a law student means so much more.

What advice do you have for those students currently at other schools looking to transfer to HLS?

You have to really put your all into that first year, academically and otherwise, and you will probably emerge as the sort of student HLS is looking for in their transfer class. That being said, there were a couple areas in which I wish I was more forward-looking. First, anyone considering transferring to HLS should definitely participate in the Harvard Law Review competition, as well as competing for a slot on your current law school’s law review. While transfers are still able to join any other journal without participating in the Law Review competition, and while my experience with the Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review has been terrific, I still wish I had at least given the Harvard Law Review a shot. Second, you need to apply as early as possible, especially to streamline your participation in fall recruiting. I ended up bidding on jobs through my first school, getting a number of interviews, and then having to decline all those interviews (because you are supposed to interview in coordination with the school at which you will be for the fall semester). I had to send explanations to all the firms that had given me interviews that I was still interested but would have to defer until Harvard’s OCI session. Although the firms were understanding, it was a hassle that I could have avoided if I started the whole process earlier. But with those two cautions, I would say the best way to prepare to transfer to HLS is to go all out and enjoy your first year – your school, your professors, and your classmates.

The question of whether to apply as a transfer student is the right move is up to you, but we think that a little research will show you the vast benefits of transferring to HLS. With 102 full-time professors and more than 300 courses, HLS is home to the most intellectually stimulating legal community in the world. Outside the classroom, there are 14 journals, over100 student organizations, clinical placements in approximately 30 areas of the law, and more than enough opportunities for you to experience the incredible diversity of the HLS community during your second- and third- year. For example, the Harvard Law Review encourages transfer applicants to apply for membership and several past transfer students have been successful in that endeavor.

Bottom line? Whether you are interested in constitutional law or environmental law or human rights advocacy or any number of other areas, the breadth and depth of our offerings is incredible. Whether you want to clerk at the circuit court level, follow the path to academia, or pursue a career in public service, the opportunities presented to our graduates are unsurpassed.

For more details on the transfer application process including eligibility guidelines, deadlines, and application requirements, please visit: http://www.law.harvard.edu/prospective/j…

Also, stay tuned in the coming days and weeks for blog entries of a few students talking about their experience transferring into Harvard Law School!

In his study with Professor Matthew Kahn of UCLA, Professor Glaeser began by estimating the amount of carbon dioxide an average household (measured by family size and income) would emit if it settled in a variety of major metropolitan areas in the U.S. and then measured comparative data between projected central city versus suburban emissions within new or recently built homes. “We calculate carbon emissions from four different sources,” said Glaeser, “including home heating, electricity, driving, and public transportation, which make up approximately 40% of America’s carbon footprint.”

When examining the results, it may not come as a surprise that the five metropolitan areas with the lowest levels of carbon emissions are all in California. Naturally temperate climates and dedicated environmentalists battling for the use of energy efficient appliances and hydroelectric power are two factors that make colder or warmer cities like Rochester (with more heating emissions) or Houston (more electricity use) appear ‘browner.’ And New York, in spite of low electricity usage and impressively low transportation-related CO2 emissions, tends to use dirtier sources of power such as coal. Sunbelt cities, like Atlanta and Memphis, ranked worst not by heating their homes but rather by electricity (dirtier sources of energy and hot summers) and the geographic sprawl that demands driving. “The data suggests that households in dense urban areas have significantly lower carbon emissions than households in the suburbs,” said Glaeser.

The question of environmental damage associated with carbon emissions nationwide remains. Even by the most conservative estimates, new homes in Memphis do more than $600 worth of environmental harm per year than homes in San Francisco, which are associated with fewer tons of carbon. “Before carbon taxes,” said Glaeser, “the country should rethink its land-use policies which currently push people towards high emissions areas and away from greener ones.” Specifically, Glaeser referred to California’s strict land use regulations that inhibit the growth both upward and outward of cities. “By restricting local development, California regulators just make that construction occur elsewhere… [more] building in the state would reduce average commute lengths and improve per-capita emissions. Higher densities could also justify more investment in new, low-emissions energy plants.”

Professor Glaeser is the Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard, where he also serves as Director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government and the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston.

Teles began by framing the Federalist Society in terms of what it does and doesn’t do. “To understand what the Federalist Society doesn’t do,” he said, “it’s important to make a distinction between the Society and the networks created by the Society… much of what people attribute to the Federalist Society are done by members as facilitated by the organization.” At the heart of Teles’ discussion was the notion of direct versus indirect outputs. Direct outputs included the Society’s charter goal of creating a “parallel curriculum” for law schools, most of whom had few to no conservative faculty a couple of decades ago, and through this, to create safe space for conservative dialogue. Indirect outputs included such conceptual goals as the recruitment of members and the provision each of social, human, and cultural capital for the conservative movement. “Conservative lawyers had instincts they weren’t acting on because the social, professional and intellectual network wasn’t there to support them,” he said. “There was also a stigma associated with the brand.”

In direct response to Teles’ remarks on social capital, Tushnet pointed out that social capital can be destroyed as easily. “One issue for the Federalist Society is how to deal with credibility issues when prominent sources of thought are no longer credible,” he said, alluding to the infamous memos of former DOJ legal advisor John Yoo in which he advocated the possible legality of torture and that enemy combatants could be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions. “Yoo’s memos became associated with conservative legal thought… how does the Society deal with the effects that the Bush administration has had on conservative credibility?”

Regarding human and social capital, Tushnet and Teles explained that the development of the movement has been tied to the existence of Republicans in government. In the absence of a Republican administration, “the Federalist Society has always been dependent on jobs in, big Washington law firms, which are in turn dependent on the existence of an administrative state” said Tushnet. So what happens in periods like the present when this pipeline narrows and this source of jobs dries up? According to Teles, the rational adaptation to being out of government is to “crank up the size of public interest” when your only allies are in the judiciary.

In closing, Teles questioned whether the Federalist Society is a victim of its own success. “There’s not as much need now for a parallel curriculum in law schools,” he said. “The general environment now is not as hostile for conservatives in law schools.”

“A major weakness of traditional approaches of regulation and discipline of legal profession,” she said, “is that the focus tends to be on individual lawyers when most attorneys work in firms, the culture of which can have a great impact on ethics…firm level policies and procedures are necessary to ensure compliance.” In light of this, scholars have suggested rethinking ways in which lawyers are regulated to encourage firms to implement ethical structures and management policies to encourage ethical behavior. Some have moved to establish law firms as collectives of a larger ethical paradigm while others have proposed that there could be a requirement on firms to implement structures and appoint a practitioner responsible for ensuring ethical behavior.

“In light of the recent deregulation of firms in Australia,” she said, “we introduced legislation that firms appoint at least one practitioner to the board of directors who is obligated to prevent and report misconduct in the practice and all legal practices must have appropriate legal management systems in place to enable the provision of legal services in accordance with professional obligations.” Central to Parker’s paper was the self-assessment of firms who were told to rate ten objective metrics (including courteous communication and timely delivery, review and follow up of legal services) of quality on a scale that ran from ‘not compliant to fully compliant plus’.

“There are a number of reasons why we wouldn’t expect management-based regulation to be a very effective strategy,” admitted Parker. “For instance, some have said that management-based regulation is a type of managerialism that isn’t appropriate to legal professionals who ought to be autonomous, sovereign decision-makers… yet this misunderstands role of management-based regulation strategies to prescribe behavior.” Another concern is that management-based regulation might be too flexible and thus becomes a simple box-ticking exercise; still, Parker maintained that the practice is still influential because it works as an educational tool when firms are going through a structural change.

So what about the results? Of the more than 600 firms that participated in the self-assessment process, Parker and her team calculated a score of complaints per year per practitioner taking in account the size of firm and number of years one had been practicing. Before self assessment, there were 0.3 complaints and after the process, the number was down to 1/3 of what it was. “Clearly,” said Parker, “self-assessment makes a difference within some firms… and in principle, there are good reasons to suggest that the management-based approach similar to that proposed by Chambliss and Wilkins is appropriate for legal profession and there is compelling empirical evidence that it had an effect in New South Wales.” “Of course,” she continued, “this raises questions about the generalized ability of this approach to work elsewhere for firms elsewhere around the world. The self assessment process forces firms to think about certain compliance issues for first time… and creates an external accountability that’s so pressing right now.”