Well, I'm not sure that this means that I am back to thinking Really Deep Thoughts and looking at the big picture, but I learned today that I got a good result in a recent trial, so I am pleased. Of course, this may simply be negative positive reinforcement in that it encourages me to continue in this "looking at the trees and not the forest" thing that I seem to be stuck in. (Can I fit any more cliches in here?)
But enough about that for now. The point is that I am pleased (although had the result been Not Good, I would have serious questions about my skilz as an advocate). This feeling is what made me think that litigation was for me, and as I noted previously, it doesn't come often enough. Of course, that also means the downs of a loss are that much rarer, too. (Goddamn, I still think about those losses.)
Oh, and one of my former colleagues just got an appointment. Whether she'll get confirmed before the current dude heads off into the sunset is a different story, but still. Good for her.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Any clue as to how your colleague got picked? I always wondered about that. Was/is she a big fundraiser for a political party?
Well, the senators in my state have a nomination committee which vets people, and then sends a list of names for appointment. As for how she made it from the list of names to the one name that will be sent for confirmation, not a clue. I am not sure what her registration is, but I would be shocked if she was a big fundraiser. And seeing her name as the one was a surprise, frankly.
I had a professor who used to say that a federal district court nomination cost at least $50,000 in campaign contributions, but that that was ok because it meant that only competant lawyers would get appointed. He said that he was only partly joking, but he was talking about a different state.
Post a Comment