I’m Not Reading This — See Also

Findings from the 12th Annual Law Department Operations Survey – Webinar

Findings from the 12th Annual Law Department Operations Survey – Webinar

The 2019 LDO Survey reveals how law departments are leveraging legal operations, including insights on: Artificial Intelligence ,Technology, Effectiveness, Legal Project Management, and more.
Join us on December 11th at 1pm ET to learn more!

The 2019 LDO Survey reveals how law departments are leveraging legal operations, including insights on: Artificial Intelligence ,Technology, Effectiveness, Legal Project Management, and more.
Join us on December 11th at 1pm ET to learn more!

Smashing The Biglaw Bonus Scale

Everyone likes a good bonus announcement, but what we really love is a bonus announcement that goes over the top of the market scale. Cue the good folks at litigation powerhouse, Susman Godfrey.

Susman has a history giving out massive bonuses. 2019 has brought another year of big bonuses at the firm. But they didn’t just repeat the big bonuses from last year, they actually added to them.

So, enough talking, here are the big numbers:

More than 20 percent of Susman Godfrey associates will have total compensation of at least $500,000 for 2019. For purposes of comparison of Susman Godfrey’s bonuses to those of law firms that base bonuses on law school graduation year, here are the median bonuses for Susman Godfrey associates by graduation year:

  • 2011 or earlier: $235,000
  • 2012: $200,000
  • 2013: $180,000
  • 2014: $160,000
  • 2015: $130,000
  • 2016: $120,000
  • 2017: $115,000

For the sake of comparison, the standard market bonus for the Class of 2017 is $25,000, meaning Susman is giving associates $90,000 more. That’s a pretty nice payday.

You can read the full announcement on the next page.

Remember — we can’t do this without you, dear readers! We depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for all salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for your help!


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

‘Tis The Season To Be Wary II: 3 Considerations For Trademark Policing Before The New Year

It’s that holiday time of year again!  For those celebrating the holiday season (which I hope is most of you), it’s not just a time for gathering family and friends to celebrate the season – it’s also a time to exchange gifts as well.  Unfortunately, the season brings with it a fair amount concern over counterfeit products.  By 2022, the International Trademark Association projects that the total estimated value of counterfeit goods (including pirated goods and digital piracy) be around $1.90–$2.81 trillion.  Now that’s a lot of coal in stockings.  Fortunately, there are a number of considerations worth noting to bolster a company’s trademark policing during the holidays – things to do that will operate as a springboard to policing products in the New Year.

It’s no surprise that this time of year poses policing challenges due to the retail focus for the holidays (at least in the United States).  As I have written before here, counterfeiting cost US companies over $600 billion in 2016 and exceeded $1 trillion (yes…that’s trillion) in 2017.  Since 2018 likely marked the first holiday season with $1 trillion+ in sales, these numbers are only increasing.  The thing is, the loss imposed by the sales of counterfeit goods is not just in the fraudulent sales – from bogus warranty (and product liability) claims to reputational damage (especially in this age of online reviews), the impact on a brand can be substantial.  As a result, companies should incorporate a strategy for handling counterfeits that works together with its trademark policing policies.

It is important to note that counterfeiting of products and trademark infringement are related but somewhat different concepts – both hurt a company, but do so in different ways.  I wrote about these differences in a previous article, but they are worth reiterating here.  First, trademark counterfeiting most commonly occurs where a third-party knowingly and intentionally places the identical mark on its own goods and fraudulently sells such goods as the genuine article (referred to as “passing off’ or “palming off” the counterfeit goods as the real thing).  Such cases involve a distinct intent to deceive.    Infringement, on the other hand, deals with confusing similarity between trademarks, for which there may be no intent to deceive and/or defraud.  Remember: trademark counterfeiting is a type of trademark infringement, but not all trademark infringement equates to counterfeiting.

The concepts are different, they remain interrelated.  When properly designed and applied in practice, a decent trademark policing strategy helps address potential counterfeit sales.  How? Although such policies must be tailored to specific brands by their very nature, there are some common considerations that are part of a foundation to such strategies that should be present in any trademark policing strategy.  Here are 3 of them:

  1.    Ensure Your Trademarks Reflect Your Use. This consideration may seem so obvious that it is not worth mentioning here.  That perception would be wrong – you would be stunned how many times I have been presented trademark portfolios to protect, only to find that trademark usage over time has deviated from what the client believes is actually protected.  Sometimes the issue is a change in usage that does not properly reflect the mark(s) as registered, sometimes it is an interruption of use for a period of time, or even a minor change to the mark that actually constitutes a material alteration that changes the commercial impression.  Each of these problems affect the company’s ability to maintain (let alone assert) its trademark rights. The point here is that a company can never — ever— take its trademark portfolio for granted.  The last thing your company (or client) needs is to seek to take action against a third party infringer or distributor of counterfeit products and realize that its rights are not what they seem.

2     Ensure the Policy Reflects an Overall a Litigation Strategy.   Think sending a cease & desist letter to a potential infringer without being ready to follow-up should the recipient ignore the warning is OK?  It’s not.  This is a simple example, but the point here is that policing trademarks is one part finding offending uses, and another part understanding what to do about them.  This should always be addressed by asking a seminal question:  What goal is your company (or client) seeking should it engage in litigation involving such infringement or counterfeits?  The answer to this question is essential to tailoring the trademark policing strategy to that answer.  More importantly, the answer is likely not one to be set in stone (and shouldn’t be) – just as a company grows and changes over time, so may the answer to that question.  Be mindful of these dynamics and ensure that the trademark policing strategy can adapt over time.  The holidays are as good a time as any to revisit what has been working over the prior year, and what should be revisited for the new one.

3     Ensure the Policy Addresses Both Traditional and Online Sales.  Nowadays, brand usage extends well into the digital world.  Enhanced by social media and interactive online components of online sales (such as online ratings and reviews), trademark policing strategies must go beyond addressing specific instances of infringement or counterfeit sales and account for different online platforms.  Infringing trademark usage on a platform such as eBay may not (and does not) have the same mechanisms for brand owners to address infringement and sales of counterfeit goods.  Moreover, the platform’s terms and policies may be revised, requiring revisions to the trademark policing strategy. Each platform reasonably likely to present potential infringing uses or sales of counterfeit goods should be considered and familiarity with reporting mechanisms established and included as part of the policing strategy.  This consideration may seem daunting, but in practice is not as difficult as it seems and is a necessary element to any effective trademark policing strategy.

These are just some of the considerations, but I am sure you get the point.  When it comes to a trademark policing strategy, ensure your company (or client) is operating from a solid foundation that can adapt over time. Although you can’t prevent all instances of trademark infringement or counterfeiting, adhering to the foregoing will help your company (or client) sing “auld lang syne” to the ghosts of infringement and counterfeit past. Now that is something worth toasting to for the New Year. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All!


Tom Kulik is an Intellectual Property & Information Technology Partner at the Dallas-based law firm of Scheef & Stone, LLP. In private practice for over 20 years, Tom is a sought-after technology lawyer who uses his industry experience as a former computer systems engineer to creatively counsel and help his clients navigate the complexities of law and technology in their business. News outlets reach out to Tom for his insight, and he has been quoted by national media organizations. Get in touch with Tom on Twitter (@LegalIntangibls) or Facebook (www.facebook.com/technologylawyer), or contact him directly at tom.kulik@solidcounsel.com.

Harry Reid Challenges Dems To Focus On The Supreme Court

The only reason Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump don’t have even more Article III judicial vacancies to fill is because when Harry Reid was majority leader he nuked the filibuster for lower court appointments. Reid was criticized at the time, and when the Democrats lost the majority in the Senate in 2014, he was criticized again. When Donald Trump won the presidency and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell nuked the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments, allowing McConnell to finish his plan of stealing a Supreme Court seat and hand it to Neil Gorsuch, Reid was again criticized for his actions.

I never agreed with the critique. The notion that Mitch McConnell wouldn’t do something to grab more power, but for the fact that Harry Reid did it first, strikes me as laughably naïve. McConnell was willing to steal an entire Supreme Court seat, he wasn’t going to be flummoxed by the filibuster right at the point of victory. If anything, Reid should have nuked the filibuster even earlier during Obama’s term. And lord knows that Obama should have been ready to fire off more and more progressive judges right from the moment he took office. Harry Reid was one of the only people in the Democratic leadership who fully appreciated what Republicans were willing to do to the courts. Compared to current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Reid looks like goddamn Braveheart to Schumer’s Robert the Bruce.

Now, Harry Reid is back with an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune, challenging the Democrats to take the Supreme Court and other judicial appointments seriously. And he’s telling Dems that they have to be willing to go to the mattresses to fight the Republicans for the future of the courts:

When I hear Democrats running for president talk about their ideas to address our country’s urgent problems, I always find myself returning to the same question: What will you do to protect the Supreme Court of the United States?..

[A]ny Democratic candidate serious about addressing the urgent crises facing our country needs a plan for dealing with the Supreme Court.

This starts with a public commitment to nominate bold, progressive lawyers to the court. Mitch McConnell’s elimination of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees means that, if Democrats win back the Senate next year, the next Democratic president will not have to cater to unreasonable Republicans to find a justice who can win 60 votes. Instead, there will be an opportunity to nominate justices who have spent their careers fighting for progressive values and can rebalance a Court that is now biased towards the rich and the powerful.

Reid cited Demand Justice’s list of 32 potential nominees (we wrote about that list here) as a good starting point for the discussion of what “bold, progressive lawyers” actually look like.

As a person who understands what courts do, and specifically what conservative, FedSoc jurists do, the fact that the Democratic primary has not been focused on judicial issues is frustrating and actually crazy-making. There is NO plan, not a progressive one, not a moderate one, forwarded by a Democrat running for President which can survive the Roberts Court as currently constituted. In many cases, the Dems don’t even have plans that will survive the freshly stacked Circuit Courts of Appeal. I simply do not think that most people are prepared for what the Federalist Society is prepared to do, and now able to do thanks to Trump and McConnell.

The POINT of stacking the courts as they have isn’t just to advance the Republican agenda, it’s to retard any shred of “progress” Democrats might try to achieve, should Republicans even lose their grip on electoral power. McConnell has turned the courts into the Republican bulwark against electoral majorities that Republicans can no longer win. The candidates who aren’t prepared to deal with that are selling an entire fantasy about what happens next, should any of them win.

Democrats need to take back the Senate, and pack the courts at ALL levels. OR, they lose. They win the White House AND the Senate AND they pack the courts OR nothing happens. Democrats need to shoot the moon, or they lose. Taking back the White House, but not the Senate and not the Courts will make people feel better, but it’s not going to change a damn thing.

Harry Reid: Democrats running for president need a plan for the Supreme Court [Salt Lake Tribune]


Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Erasing the Stigma: Self-Care Tips From Mark Yacano

Mark Yacano has had a really interesting journey in law and has been able to navigate multiple transformations with grace. He started as a commercial and product liability lawyer and then morphed into eDiscovery. After a stint in New York leading an eDiscovery services company, he leveraged his passion for law and technology at Major, Lindsey & Africa to help build a business unit that focuses on, contract management programs, content automation and alternative staffing models.  Mark explains, “ Legal Department clients often come to us they have a ‘burning platform,’ and a deep business needs to find ways to improve their process and interactions with technology.”

Mark also hosts Erasing the Stigma: Conversations About Mental Health in the Legal Profession a podcast at Major, Lindsey & Africa. You can find it on the Legal Talent Talk Network wherever you get your podcasts. “As someone who personally has faced mental health issues, I jumped at the chance to join my MLA colleagues in contributing to the dialogue,” Mark explains. He continues, “I am engaging with passionate and generous people every day. The podcast is a true labor of love. It gives me an opportunity to give back to the profession I love.”

Mark explains, “Although a lot of focus is on the issues that lawyers in firms face, the problem goes beyond law firms.” Mark says, “In-house attorneys often have as much work (and stress) as their law firm counterparts but with fewer resources. We see a lot of lean legal departments these days with gifted lawyers working under constant stress.” According to Mark, the personality characteristics of lawyers that make it hard for them to seek help are the same, whether you are at a firm or in-house.

There are a lot of things we can do to cope with stress and practice self-care. Mark cautions, “Please understand they should all augment getting proper health care including regular physicals, along with therapy and psychiatric care, where appropriate.” And yes, Mark has some tips!

Start with Basics, Eat Right

Mark says, “For me, eating right means avoiding binges at multiple food carts when I am stressed. Attempting to digest hot dogs, pretzels, and gyros within ten minutes of each other is a short-term high. You feel much worse afterward.” So definitely do not try this at home!

Be Consistently Inconsistent to Mix Things Up

Mark is often on the road. After all, he is in a client service business. “When I travel, I try to mix things up because I think it makes the grind of being on the road less stressful.”  Mark uses the Mind-body app to find new places to work out. He says, “I have found that failing at yoga in a place where you know no one is liberating. Going to different restaurants and trying new dishes is a great way to avoid the rut of (over) eating the same thing.”

Order (Nice!) Stationery and a (Fancy!) Pen 

People like notes and they remember them. Marks advises, “Getting a handwritten note is a nice surprise these days. They are memorable because they are rare. They also humanize the author and make a relationship.” That is why he insists that traveling with notes, stamps and a nice pen is a must!

Stop Talking to Yourself!

“An enormous amount of our stress comes from the inner dialogue we have with ourselves,” according to Mark. He continues, “Unfortunately, the inner dialogue usually isn’t a pep talk but an often-incorrect narrative about who we are. We often talk to ourselves more harshly and less respectfully than we talk to others.” Mark recommends, “I travel with a copy of Gary John Bishop’s book called UNFU*K Yourself: Getting out of your head and into your life. I consider it the ultimate pocket guide to stopping the negative self-talk.” 

Watch Hallmark Movies, Often 🙂

Mark recommends watching the classic, hallmark movies. “You can watch them all year round, and they always have the perfect ending! Who hates a movie where everyone is happy?” Mark explains. After all, there is a reason why these movies resonate across generations. 

Learn to Cook to Build Great Relationships

 Mark says, “Cooking not only helps you sustain life, is a way to learn, create, and to bring people together.” He explains, “Having grandparents who were in the restaurant business, I grew up with a great view of how food can bring people together. My mom still has people in for dinner weekly. My wife and kids all cook.  It is a common bond that ties us together. Great relationships can come from time spent at the dinner table.”


Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. Olga founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. Olga also co-founded SunLaw, an organization dedicated to preparing women in-house attorneys to become general counsels and legal leaders, and WISE to help female law firm partners become rainmakers. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can email Olga at olga@olgamack.com or follow her on Twitter @olgavmack. 

California Bar Exam Results: A Breakdown By Law School (July 2019)

We already know the general trend of California bar exam results this year (up, after an abysmal 2018), but now we’ve got a breakdown revealing just how each law school’s graduates faired on the exam.

There’s lots of good news. 100 percent of test takers from Duke Law and University of Chicago Law School passed the Cali bar. Harvard Law School and University of Michigan Law School had a 97 percent pass rate, and New York University School of Law clocked in 96 percent, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and the University of Virginia School of Law had a 95 percent rate, Stanford at 92 percentage passage, Columbia Law at 93 percent passage, and Yale Law had 91 percent pass the exam.

As you can see, Stanford is the only California law school that cracked 90 percent, but Berkeley (89 percent) and UCLA (88 percent) also had noteworthy showings.

And all law schools did as well or better than the results of the 2018 bar exam. The biggest jump, amongst California law schools are University of California, Hastings College of Law, from 60 percent to 79 percent; Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law from 66 percent to 82 percent; and the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law from 50 percent to 63 percent.

Congrats to everyone who passed, and check out the full results below.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Sketches of Torture

(Image via Getty)

As a practicing criminal defense trial attorney, I’ve seen a lot of grim pictures in my day — photos of crimes, of bodies cut open for autopsies, of gaping wounds. I’ve visited taped-off police scenes just after the crime was committed and sidestepped blood from stabbings and shootings. But last week I saw something I’d never seen before that both moved me and made me sick — line drawings of a person being tortured, penciled by the torture-victim himself. While the drawings were basic and the technique primitive, they speak volumes about the horrendous acts our government permitted against people perceived to be its enemies. They also show how far our country went, post-9/11, to justify unjustifiable acts in the name of patriotism and the quest to stop terrorism.

The drawings were done by Abu Zubaydah, an alleged terrorist captured in 2002, who is still being held by the U.S. in a detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

When his drawings were declassified (a surprise in and of itself), Mark Denbeaux, a professor at Seton Hall University School of Law, contacted Zubayah’s lawyers and, with his students, wrote a 95-page report titled, “How America Tortures.”

The report (which includes the drawings and notes from the prisoner) is a grim look at the codification of torture, officially making legal “enhanced interrogation techniques.” From the moment the “high value detainee” is captured, he is made to feel the sting of his apprehension. In Zubayah’s case, when he was moved by plane to his eventual place of detainment (the “rendition”), he was shackled like cargo to the plane floor. Earmuffs, blindfolds, and a hood were placed over his head for sensory deprivation. He wore a diaper because he was not permitted to use a bathroom.

Once interned at a “black site,” he was waterboarded, sleep-deprived, beaten, exposed to loud noise, kept naked and cold, then caged in a box so cramped, even getting into a fetal position was difficult.

According to the report, Zubaydah had already been interrogated by the FBI, who were satisfied that he told them all he knew, when he was picked up by CIA agents and brought first to a black site in Thailand for further questioning. The CIA had no handbook for enhanced interrogation at the time so contracted two psychologists experienced in training special military-op forces to withstand enemy torture.

Although Zubaydah was waterboarded several times a day, up to 86 times in all, kept from sleeping for weeks, and made to stand on a badly injured leg for hours with his hands cuffed to an overhead bar, he gave no new information. According to the report, “Other personnel at Detention Site Green were ‘profoundly affected’ by what they saw in the interrogation sessions, sometimes ‘to the point of tears and choking up.’”

The report leads to many questions: Who are the people assigned to inflicting such harm on a fellow human being? What do their consciences say? Do they extract such pain for “love of country,” or are they prompted by something darker like sadism or blind revenge?

One of the main goals of terrorism is to destabilize the democratic underpinnings of the system under attack. Terrorists want to cause chaos and fear. By upending systemic safeguards for those charged with crimes (that means all crimes, including terrorism), ignoring the presumption of innocence, and willfully causing others harm, we hand terrorists a victory.  We’ve upended our system of law.

The drawings are not only revelatory about what Zubaydah underwent but also provide a window into how our system willingly turned its back on process and order.

Torture doesn’t work. It might elicit information, but by its nature, that information is suspect. Meanwhile, our humanity and values have been compromised for questionable, if any, gain.

While the drawings are hard to look at, it’s our obligation to do so and make sure that every prisoner, no matter the charge, never undergoes such treatment again.


Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Law School Professor Gives Students Gift Of Wholly Recycled Exam Questions

It feels like every year we have a professor decide to reuse an old exam setting off a firestorm when students realize that some of the class had prior access to the exam — and sometimes the grading rubric — and others didn’t. The school gets involved and crafts a solution that pleases pretty much nobody while gunners complain that they shouldn’t be punished for having dug up every exam the professor’s ever given. And frankly they’ve got a point. If being a lawyer is about doggedly researching every angle to get the best result then it’s hard to say they did anything wrong — it’s not like they knew the exam they looked at would be copied. Consider this “practice ready” education.

But something has to be done for those who couldn’t get access to the old exam and that’s where there is — and we repeat this all the time — never a good remedy to reusing an exam question.

This year, the short straw was drawn by Cornell Law School where Professor Winnie Taylor reused a contracts exam essay question. To her credit, she *thought* she was in the clear because she had given the previous exam at her old stomping grounds of Brooklyn Law School and didn’t think anyone would dig those up.

Someone dug those up:

Professor Winnie Taylor’s contracts class exam essay was verbatim borrowed from her Brooklyn Law contracts class. Select international students obtained said exam prior to its administration. Upon complaint to the law school by the entire class, Dean of Students Markeisha Miner issued an unclear statement as to what part of the exam would be struck, citing the wrong portion of the test that wasn’t even at issue. The writing portion of the exam was worth 50% of the total class grade, thus leaving a poorly-written multiple-choice section constituting the entire four credit contracts grade. Students are extremely upset and the school refuses to address the issue of fairness considering students who previously obtained the exam had extra time to flush out the remaining parts of the exam.

Note, it was also supposedly Cornell Law School the last time this happened, though some tipsters disputed the original intel. If that story was correct, you’d think they’d be getting good at dealing with this by now.

In any event, there’s no way to please everyone here which is why it’s so essential to never put the class in this position. Why do professors ever think this will work out? It’s just a profound failure to appreciate the gumption of your gunners. If this is a professor’s first exam ever, a couple of students are still going to find her 1L class notes to dig for clues. The great game of the legal academy is forever professors against gunners in a constant struggle to keep the exam predictable enough to be fair but fresh enough that it’s not rite regurgitation. With the internet giving everyone access to everything, this is harder than ever. But when professors underestimate the students, this is what you get.

Professors probably should write new exams every time out of the fate, but if you HAVE to skimp for some reason, consider trading exams with some other professor. Use your next academic conference to build relationships with folks working out of the same casebook and throw your exams into a mutual google drive or something. Just don’t tell people your plan.

Earlier: A Note For Law School Professors That We Regrettably Have To Repeat: There Is Never A Good Remedy To Reusing An Exam Question


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

During Final Exams, Law Students Should Heed The Words Of Legendary Basketball Coach Jim Valvano

Happy thoughts! (photo via Getty)

Ed. note: This post was originally published on December 1, 2017. We have republished this article to bring peace of mind to our law school audience during this stressful period.

“Without a wrinkle in today, cuz there’s no tomorrow/Just a picture perfect day that lasts a whole lifetime.” Jay-Z

It’s the final month of the year. For law students, this means it’s the end time (also called end times, end of time, end of days, last days, final days, or eschaton) or, better known to the general-education audience: final exams.

Unlike grading in other schools, curriculums, or type of studies, law school courses often base your grades completely on the final exams.

This makes law school quite an intense learning atmosphere as well as a stressful environment that can cause adverse mental health effects. One grade can make you feel like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, while another mark may make you feel like an abject failure. But rest assured, do the reading and put the time in, and you will be okay. We’ve all been there.

This week also marks the 11th Annual V Week for Cancer Research. It’s a good annual reminder not to treat each situation (or final exam for that matter) as life or death because you’ll die a lot of times. Write that down.

Almost two decades ago (in 1993), ESPN awarded the legendary and national-title winning basketball coach Jim Valvano its first Arthur Ashe Courage and Humanitarian Award. Valvano would pass away from cancer one month later. In his last months of his life, he founded the V Foundation with the purpose of researching a cure for cancer. Since its inception, over $200 million in cancer research grants has been awarded nationwide by the V Foundation, which donates 100% of all its donations.

As the 13th Annual V Week gets underway, you will likely see a highlight or two of Jimmy V’s acceptance speech. During his last month on earth, he gave one of the greatest acceptance speeches of all time. At the time, he may have needed help off the stage, but over twenty years later he is remembered for the ten minutes of energy, passion, and wisdom he gave on stage at the inaugural Excellence in Sports Performance Yearly Award ceremony.

Law students, I implore you to take ten minutes from your finals cramming sessions to watch Valvano’s farewell address. Turn it on during your Domino’s Pizza, Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, or Sour Patch Kids snack break. Or listen to it during your midnight drive home while you’re having an existential crisis. It will certainly help you take a moment to relax and gain some proper perspective on the challenges facing you.

Many lines from his speech have been highlighted and recited before, but I thought I’d share my favorite part of Valvano’s speech with you:

It’s so important to know where you are. I know where I am right now. How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal. You have to be willing to work for it.

I just got one last thing; I urge all of you, all of you, to enjoy your life, the precious moments you have. To spend each day with some laughter and some thought, to get your emotions going. To be enthusiastic every day, and Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Nothing great could be accomplished without enthusiasm,” to keep your dreams alive in spite of problems whatever you have. The ability to be able to work hard for your dreams to come true, to become a reality.

I often revert to Valvano’s words when I’m going through a trying time. I hope you’ll remember his sage advice during your next few weeks of testing. You have to be willing to work for it — do the reading and put the time in, and you will be okay.

Final exam season is notoriously difficult. It may not seem this way right now, but you will be better because of it. Keep the dream alive!

After all, you are one step closer to becoming an attorney … or at least a few weeks away from winter break.


Renwei Chung is the Diversity Columnist at Above the Law. You can contact Renwei by email at projectrenwei@gmail.com, follow him on Twitter (@renweichung), or connect with him on LinkedIn.