The Wall Street Journal-20080206-Best of the Law Blog - Excerpts from Recent Entries at WSJ-com-s Law Blog

Return to: The_Wall_Street_Journal-20080206

Best of the Law Blog / Excerpts from Recent Entries at WSJ.com's Law Blog

Full Text (792  words)

Stevens the Senator Cites

Stevens the Lawyer in Brief

It's unusual for a sitting U.S. senator to write a brief for a Supreme Court case. It's even more unusual for a senator to cite his own law-review article in that brief. But that's what happened last week.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R., Alaska) filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court urging the justices to uphold a $2.5 billion punitive-damages award against Exxon Mobil Corp. over the 1989 Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

The lawsuit turns on the narrow field of federal maritime law, a subject Sen. Stevens knows well -- very well, as the brief's second footnote suggests: "For an extended historical discussion of the relationship between maritime and common law, see generally Theodore F. Stevens, Erie R.R. v. Tompkins and the Uniform General Maritime Law, 64 HARV. L. REV. 246 (1950)."

In an interview, Sen. Stevens expressed some amusement over citing his own 58-year-old law review article in a Supreme Court brief. "I never expected to be in this situation," said the senator, a 1950 Harvard Law School graduate who practiced law for years before entering politics.

"I hesitated to put that in, because I didn't want to make it personal," he said, "but it seemed to me that the concepts of the historical relationship of federal maritime law and state law were relevant to the issues related to the Exxon Valdez."

Indeed they are. The award against Exxon Mobil is the largest ever by a U.S. federal court and is the final major litigation left from the Valdez oil spill. It stems from a class-action lawsuit brought by more than 32,600 Alaska fishermen and others seeking additional compensation for lost business because of the oil spill. At issue in the case: whether the federal Clean Water Act precludes the federal maritime common-law remedy of punitive damages. Mr. Stevens argued that the fishermen should get the punitive damages.

Does he hope that the justices will go back and read his law-review article? "I don't imagine the justices look at these amicus briefs that much," he said. "A clerk might call one of the justices' attention to the footnote but this wasn't an act of flamboyance at all -- it's just that I was writing a brief and wanted the justices to know that I was fully aware of the issues that will be before them."

3LForHire.com

A third-year law student who, like many others, is having trouble landing a job recently tried an enterprising tactic: placing an advertisement about himself in a legal journal.

Pietro deVolpi, a law student at American University in Washington, D.C., took out blurbs in the January and February issues of the ABA Journal alerting readers to his job search: "J.D. candidate with strong credentials seeks entry-level position in law firm or legal department." The ad, which he says ran him about $150 a month, also refers readers to Mr. deVolpi's Web site, www.3lforhire.com, which includes the basics: an introduction and tabs to Mr. deVolpi's resume, references and a cover letter.

Mr. deVolpi, who would like to practice business litigation at a law firm, says he saw the advertisement as "another angle to take, another way to get the word out."

Has it worked? "Not yet," he says. "I'm still hopeful."

Other avenues have included making daily runs through job-posting Web sites and the old-fashioned letter-writing campaign. "I've sent out about 250 letters to firms in Chicago, New York, Philly, Baltimore and Washington, but so far, that hasn't worked."

Readers of this blog were full of advice for Mr. deVolpi, who says that between college and law school, he has amassed more than $200,000 in debt. They critiqued his cover letter, his resume and his overall job-seeking approach.

Others were upbeat. "Good effort and attitude from this fellow," wrote one. "Pietro, keep it up and you'll do just fine. Character outshines numbers -- it just takes a little time."

McCain's Joke

Arizona Sen. John McCain is the only leading candidate without a law degree. He must not think that's a bad thing, judging from a lawyer joke he's been telling at various stops on the campaign trail.

The zinger: "Q: What is the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? A: One is a scum-sucking bottom-dweller. The other is a fish."

On occasion, Sen. McCain has followed the joke up with a concession of sorts: "There goes the lawyer vote."

When asked to explain the motivation behind the barb, Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for the McCain campaign, said, simply, "It's a joke."

While some readers took the joke in good spirits, others didn't. "It's a nasty and unnecessary remark," wrote one. "It also symbolizes his lack of understanding of law."

---

Ashby Jones contributed to this column.