Police Arrest CiZC Youth Chairperson as Clampdown Escalates – The Zimbabwean

15.8.2019 14:41

Police have arrested Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition Youth Committee Chairperson, Pride Mkono. He is currently detained at Harare Central.

Jeremiah Bhamu of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights is attending to the case. The police are alleging that he committed acts of subversion following the January 2019 stay away.  He joins a growing list of over 20 people that have been charged with subversion since January 2019.

Meanwhile the last 48 hours have seen an escalation in the clampdown on human rights defenders and opposition party activists. The security of citizens has since deteriorated as the state attempts to foil the 16 August 2019 demonstration called by the opposition MDC Alliance. According to the Zimbabwe to a joint statement issued earlier by Heads of Coalitions today in Harare at least 6 people have been abducted and suffered severe assaults in the last 72 hours and the state is in overdrive arresting human rights defenders and activists. Below are some of the cases:

  1. Pride Mkono (Chairperson of the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition Youth Assembly) arrested and charged with subversion
  2. Cecilia Chimbiri (Deputy Chairperson of the MDC Alliance Youth Assembly) summoned by Law and Order Section at Harare Central today, charges are still yet to be ascertained
  3. Tatenda Mombeyarara (Coordinator of the Citizens Manifesto) abducted at his home in Chitungwiza, assaulted and left for dead in Hatfield. Tatenda sustained serious injuries (broken legs, arm and swollen buttocks). He is currently hospitalized
  4. Blessing Kanotunga (MDC Alliance Youth Chairperson for Mufakose District) was abducted around 12 midnight by 5 armed men, he was badly beaten and dumped at Magolis turn off along Chitungwiza road. Blessing was also poured a white coustic substance all over his body and sustained severe lacerations on the back
  5. Morgan Gumbo (MDC Alliance Activist from Mufakose, Harare) was abducted from his home by armed men. His whereabouts are still unknown.

The recent clampdown closely resembles the January 2019 clampdown on human rights defenders, ordinary citizens and opposition activists.

More details to follow……….

Violent crackdown on activists underway ahead of opposition protests
MDC, Zimbabwe trade unions planning protests

Post published in: Featured

MDC, Zimbabwe trade unions planning protests – The Zimbabwean

Supporters of Zimbabwe’s main opposition leader Nelson Chamisa of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party gather for a rally to commemorate the 19th anniversary of the MDC at Gwanzura Stadium in Harare on October 27, 2018. – Chamisa claims to have won the July 30 presidential election. (Photo by Jekesai NJIKIZANA / AFP)

This is an attempt to counter austerity measures and to launch a new currency.

Nqobizitha Mlilo, a Human Rights Lawyer and MDC NEC says it is always a good idea to fight for the rights of Zimbabweans and for people who are living under a vampire state.

“The election in 2018 represented the mist brazen of stolen elections. Mr. Mnangagwa stole that election. MDC President Nelson Chamisa won that election and the victory was stolen and now it can be seen that Zimbabwe is a military state.”

“This protest is an attempt to return the country to normalcy and legitimacy.”

The protests come over a year since Emmerson Mnangagwa won a closely-fought election, in which he promised investment, transparency and a better Zimbabwe for all its inhabitants.

Similar protests earlier this year led to the deaths of 13 people, with hundreds beaten and many women sexually assaulted.

Police Arrest CiZC Youth Chairperson as Clampdown Escalates
Statement on the Increasing Human Rights Violations Ahead of the August 16 Protests

Post published in: Featured

Statement on the Increasing Human Rights Violations Ahead of the August 16 Protests – The Zimbabwean

To begin with, we wish to affirm that we are non-partisan and hence not involved in any of the political processes taking place.  We are committed to our watchdog role in defence of the fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution of Zimbabwe, particularly the Bill of Rights provisions. We bring specific focus to section 58 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe which guarantees everyone’s right to free assembly and association as well as the right to demonstrate and petition provided in section 59. Everyone in Zimbabwe is entitled to these rights, they are not a privilege from government.  Any threat to interfere with such rights is hereby condemned as an attack on the Constitution.  In the same spirit, we note that these rights must be exercised peacefully without interfering with the other political, civil, economic and social rights of others. In that regard, organisers of the August 16, protests have an obligation to ensure that their rights are exercised peacefully and that the right to life and protection of private property will be respected.

We reiterate that we do not anticipate to see the ghost of August 1, 2018 and January 2019 shutdown atrocities revisiting the country. The police have an obligation to maintain law and order and not to interfere with peoples’ enjoyment of human rights.  The same applies to the defence forces whose role is to protect life and not to take it. We regret that there are already indications based on circumstantial evidence that some suspected state security agents may have already started attacking human rights defenders, as well as political activists.  Sadly, these developments remind us of the atrocities committed earlier this year in January.  We denounce and condemn statements by senior government officials, particularly statements by Deputy Minister of Defence Victor Matemadanda which are a celebration of and incitement to the killing of civilians exercising their democratic rights. This is regrettable especially at a time when many families are still mourning their loved ones killed by soldiers in August 2018 and January 2019. We reiterate that peaceful demonstrations are part of the human rights and democracy fabric. Citizens should be allowed to voice their disgruntlements without fear of persecution, citizens should have trust in the role of the police and the military to protect them and ensure that peace prevails during the demonstrations.

In that regard, we note with regret that 6 people so far were abducted by suspected state agents in the evening of 13 and 14 August 2019, and they have been severely tortured and left for dead. One of the victims had a harmful caustic liquid poured on his body. During the torture the men accused the victims of being involved in organizing the August 16 demonstrations. Section 53 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe clearly states that no person may be subjected to physical or psychological torture. This position is reiterated in the Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa (Robben Island Guidelines) and Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. Article 5 protects every person’s right to the respect of their inherent dignity and prohibits all forms of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and/or punishment. Zimbabwe is a member state of the African Union and is therefore bound by the provisions of the African Charter. Section 52 of the Constitution also guarantees the right to personal security from violence emanating from public and private sources. These actions by suspected state agents are barbaric and must be condemned.

We call upon the SADC, the African Union, the United Nations and international community to condemn the unwarranted crackdown on civilians by the state. The Government of Zimbabwe has an obligation to respect human rights. The developments so far point to a real risk that the people of Zimbabwe’s fundamental freedoms are once again in danger and this must be stopped before it gets out of control.

MDC, Zimbabwe trade unions planning protests
Mnangagwa knows where to find us, says MDC

Post published in: Featured

Mnangagwa knows where to find us, says MDC – The Zimbabwean

Tendai Biti

President Emmerson Mnangagwa on Thursday made an eleventh-hour pitch to his main opposition rival Nelson Chamisa to call off protests planned for Friday and meet him for what he described as “peaceful constructive dialogue”.

Without mentioning Chamisa by name, Mnangagwa said “riots and destructive violence” would not resolve Zimbabwe’s deepening economic crisis.

Chamisa’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has called for peaceful protests in all major urban centres, with the biggest march set for Harare on Friday.

The MDC says the protests are to force Mnangagwa to agree to a dialogue with Chamisa which the party says should be held under the facilitation of a neutral foreign mediator carrying an African Union and United Nations mandate.

Mnangagwa, who is due to attend a SADC summit in Tanzania this weekend, said on Twitter: “The recent national holidays remind us that our strongest asset is our unity. I reiterate my calls to all opposition leaders that my door remains open and my arms remain outstretched. Riots and destructive violence must be rejected; peaceful constructive dialogue is the way forward.”

MDC deputy president Tendai Biti said Mnangagwa was not genuine about engaging the MDC.

Biti said: “The right to demonstrate is enshrined in the constitution and it is our democratic right to exercise the same. Mnangagwa is not genuine about genuine dialogue. If he was, he would create the conditions necessary for that to happen. He would stop abducting our people. He would not seek to negotiate on Twitter. He would ensure that the issue is tabled in Dar es Salaam to allow SADC to guarantee the process and allow an agreed facilitator.

“When Mnangagwa gets genuine, he knows where we are. We are at 44 Nelson Mandela Avenue in Harare.”

Mnangagwa has initiated a dialogue process with smaller parties who competed with his Zanu PF party in disputed elections last year. The MDC, which does not recognise Mnangagwa as president, has refused to participate in that initiative, demanding foreign mediation.

Several rights activists were abducted and tortured on Tuesday and Wednesday night. Human rights lawyers said the activists were interrogated over the planned MDC protests which begin in Harare before moving to Bulawayo on Monday. Similar street marches will be held in Masvingo, Mutare and Gweru.

Statement on the Increasing Human Rights Violations Ahead of the August 16 Protests
Zimbabwe faces shortage of its Zimdollar

Post published in: Featured

Pass Rate On California’s Baby Bar Was Only 24 Percent

(Image via Getty)

Students at unaccredited law schools in California who want to advance in their studies and ultimately take the bar exam must pass a test known as the “Baby Bar.”

But just 24 percent of the 323 people who took the Baby Bar in June passed, according to the State Bar.

Somewhat surprisingly, that low success rate is the best result since 25 percent of takers passed the October 2014 version of the test formally known as the First-Year Law Students’ Examination.

Historically, the overall pass rate for the Baby Bar has been between 16 percent and 20 percent, according to a recent email sent to the State Bar of California’s board by an agency spokeswoman.

The exam is also administered in October and given over one day, as opposed to the two days set aside for the general bar.

In addition to first-year students at unaccredited law schools, those in California’s Law Office Study Program such as Kim Kardashian must take the Baby Bar. On the June 2018 Baby Bar, 35.3 percent of Law Office Study Program participants passed.

There was speculation that Kardashian might take this June’s Baby Bar, but she has yet to post anything to social media about whether she did or how she fared. Results were made available to test takers on Friday, August 9. More detailed results from the June 2019 Baby Bar will be posted in three weeks, according to bar spokeswoman Teresa Ruano.

Those who must pass the Baby Bar do not receive any credit for their legal studies until they pass. Success on the test must be achieved within the first three exams given after a prospective lawyer becomes eligible to take the test to receive credit for all of their studies up until that point. If an applicant passes on their fourth or more attempt, they only receive credit for one year of legal study.

While the State Bar has been dealing lately with the fallout from a major bar exam snafu in which the topics to be tested were prematurely disclosed, it had to confront a significant slip-up in administering the Baby Bar a few years back.

The June 2016 exam mistakenly featured an essay question about a subject not typically taught to first-year students.

Test-takers are told that contracts, criminal law, and torts will be the subjects covered, but the summer test three years ago included an essay question about criminal procedure.

The bar’s director for admissions at the time said she could not remember a similar problem arising in her 35 years working for the agency.


Lyle Moran is a freelance writer in San Diego who handles both journalism and content writing projects. He previously reported for the Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Diego Daily Transcript, Associated Press, and Lowell Sun. He can be reached at lmoransun@gmail.com and found on Twitter @lylemoran.

Want To Be More Confident In Your Research? Just Quick Check It

Legal research has long been one of the most critical yet time-consuming tasks in any case. If you ask most lawyers, they’ll say they don’t have enough time to do a completely thorough job, and even those that do still live in fear of missing that one crucial case or authority that could undermine their whole argument. Even with all the advances in technology that have been revolutionizing the practice of law, legal research has continued to be a major source of stress for attorneys.

Until now. Thomson Reuters is changing the legal research game once again by introducing Quick Check through Westlaw Edge. Quick Check harnesses the power of AI and machine learning to help legal researchers save time and improve accuracy. When time and resources are at a premium, Quick Check is a lifesaver.

Most researchers have limited time and resort to whatever research methods have worked best in the past. Unfortunately, though, those methods don’t always capture all the relevant materials. Using AI, Quick Check goes beyond those traditional legal research methods to fill in the gaps and find relevant materials that the researcher might have initially missed.

With Quick Check, you can be confident in your research and never again feel that crushing doubt that you’ve missed something important.

How it Works

While Quick Check is revolutionary from a legal research perspective, it’s also simple to use, which is crucial for busy lawyers who are strapped for time. To get started, you simply tell Quick Check whether you’re looking to check your own work or analyze your opponent’s work (more on this later), and then upload or drag and drop your brief or memo into the system.

 Quick Check immediately goes to work, analyzing your document and generating a comprehensive report using the rich universe of proprietary sources Thomson Reuters has amassed over the years.

Once the analysis is complete, you’re taken from the Quick Check homepage to a report.  If you’ve selected “Check your work” the report will have three handy tabs labeled: Recommendations, Warnings for cited authority, and Table of authorities.

Here you’ll see that Quick Check relies on tried and true methods of traditional research like keyword searching, direct citing relationships and the West Key Number system. However, by using AI and machine learning algorithms, Quick Check is also able to expand its analysis and go beyond just the citations and language in the document to find highly relevant materials that may be missed in traditional research.  

The comprehensive Quick Check report is quick and easy to review, starting with the Recommendations tab. This tab is designed to identify materials beyond those cited in your document that may be relevant to your research. An incredibly useful feature of the recommendations is that they’re organized and presented under the headings of the document you’ve imported, so you can easily see why things are being recommended or even focus on specific arguments or sections of your brief at any given time. The recommendations only include authorities that are not already included in your document, so you know you’re dealing solely with the universe of things you might have missed.

The recommended authorities come with a wealth of information displayed directly on the screen, including a summary of the outcome of the legal issue for which the case is being recommended and a snippet of the relevant text from the actual case, so you have a good sense of whether you’ll be interested in clicking through to the actual case. There are also recommendation tags that show useful information like whether the case is frequently cited, is from a high court, or is from the last two years, as well as indications of your previous interactions with the case in Westlaw Edge — if you previously viewed it, foldered it, highlighted it, or notated it, you’ll know without having to go to it. You can even filter by recommendation tag or prior interaction to get right to the authorities you most want to see.

The second tab, Warnings for cited authority, focuses instead on the citations that are included in the document you uploaded. These are the KeyCite warnings you’ve been relying on for years — indications of whether a case has been flagged for severely negative treatment,  whether the case contains language which has been impliedly overruled, whether there’s negative treatment, or whether the case is pending appeal. The flagged cases come with a paragraph blurb of the language that has caused the negative treatment, so you can see right away whether the warnings relate to the language you’re relying on.

Between these two tabs of the Quick Check report, you can be sure that you’ve covered all your bases and haven’t cited bad law. Feeling confident about your research has never been easier.

The final tab is a table of authorities, which is an incredible administrative assistance, if not technically a research tool. Quick Check compiles case authorities cited in your uploaded document so you can quickly and easily download or print them, without having to waste time individually pulling up each cite.

Check Your Opponents

As useful as all the above features are for checking your own work, the benefits of Quick Check don’t stop there. Quick Check allows you to import any document you want, not just your own. This means you now have the ultimate weapon for analyzing and countering your opponents’ arguments.

You start from the same import screen, but instead click on “Analyze an opponent’s work.”

You still get all three tabs of information that are available when you check your own work, but you’re taken first to the Potential weakness tab, so you can start identifying potential weaknesses in the law your opponent cited and poking holes in your opponent’s arguments right away.

Red, orange, and yellow KeyCite flags are presented up front, so you can easily distinguish or discount the authorities cited by your opponent.  And since Quick Check is integrated into Westlaw Edge, you have access to its exclusive orange warning for overruling risk, which notifies you if a court has used the same or similar language to that which was overruled in a separate case. In the other tabs, you get recommendations that your opponent chose not to cite and a compiled table of authorities of your opponent’s document.

As always, Thomson Reuters takes data security seriously. When you upload documents, they’re immediately encrypted and then deleted as soon as Quick Check’s analysis is complete. There’s zero risk of the documents or information in them being stored or accessed by the wrong people.

Quick Check is now included as part of your Westlaw Edge subscription, and it’s hard to think of a better way to be confident that your research is complete. When it’s this easy to check your research, there’s no reason not to — especially if there’s a chance your opponent or judge has this weapon in their arsenal.

Thomson Reuters is currently offering a free trial of Westlaw Edge, so you can test the power of Quick Check for yourself. Once you experience the confidence that Quick Check gives you, you’ll never look at legal research the same way again.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg And Kate McKinnon Meet At Last

(Image via Getty, NBC)

The notorious, honorable, badass, iconic RBG visited us tonight. If that wasn’t enough, Kate McKinnon came too… their meeting was epic. I have no words.

— Abby Goldfarb, one of the stars of the off-Broadway production of “Fiddler on the Roof,” commenting on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s appearance as an audience member at the show earlier this week. SNL star Kate McKinnon, who often portrays the SCOTUS justice on the late-night comedy show, was at the performance as well, where the two finally met. A video of the pair saying goodbye can be seen below.


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

That DOJ Lawyer Who Argued That Kids Didn’t Need Sleep Or Toothbrushes? Yeah, She Lost

Back in June, a video made the rounds of DOJ attorney Sarah Fabian arguing before the Ninth Circuit that while the law requires the administration keep immigrant children in “safe and sanitary” conditions, those conditions need not include niceties like “beds” or “soap.” The argument was pitched to exactly the wrong panel. While you may be thinking that any panel of “human f**king beings” should constitute a bad panel for that argument, this is the federal judiciary in 2019, so there are actually a great many judges who might have rubber-stamped Fabian’s argument. Alas, she had to tell a panel including Judge A. Wallace Tashima — who was a child in an internment camp — that kids can be forced to sleep on concrete.

As you might imagine, the argument did not go well.

Today, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the government’s case:

In a nutshell, the government was arguing that an order forcing them to extend specific services like toothbrushes exceeded the original Flores agreement and therefore gave the court jurisdiction. The court declined to see basic dignity as such a radical departure from “safe and sanitary” and dismissed the case in an opinion that is remarkably restrained when a hand-scrawled “Are you people serious?!?” over the government’s brief would have been a perfectly acceptable response.

The government also argues that the phrase “safe and sanitary” is so vague that either it cannot be enforced…, or it leaves “the specifics of compliance [with paragraph 12A] up to” the government. Not so.

The district court’s interpretation of the Agreement is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the language of paragraph 12A, which does provide a standard sufficiently clear to be enforced. The court found, among other things, that minors (1) were “not receiving hot, edible, or a sufficient number of meals during a given day,” (2) “had no adequate access to clean drinking water,” (3) experienced “unsanitary conditions with respect to the holding cells and bathroom facilities,” (4) lacked “access to clean bedding, and access to hygiene products (i.e., toothbrushes, soap, towels),” and (5) endured “sleep deprivation” as a result of “cold temperatures, overcrowding, lack of proper bedding (i.e., blankets, mats), [and] constant lighting.” After so finding, the district court concluded that these conditions fall short of paragraph 12A’s requirement that facilities be “safe and sanitary,” especially given “the particular vulnerability of minors.” Those determinations reflect a commonsense understanding of what the quoted language requires. Assuring that children eat enough edible food, drink clean water, are housed in hygienic facilities with sanitary bathrooms, have soap and toothpaste, and are not sleep- deprived are without doubt essential to the children’s safety. The district court properly construed the Agreement as requiring such conditions rather than allowing the government to decide whether to provide them.

Now, will the CBP actually comply with the opinion? Sadly that’s a different story.

(You can read the whole opinion on the next page.)

Earlier: DOJ Lawyer Earns 15 Minutes Of Infamy Arguing In Front Of Exactly The Wrong Panel


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.

Shut The Door, Have A Seat: Mock Interview Questions For OCI Season

(Image via Getty)

On-Campus Interview (OCI) season is not in full swing here at Vanderbilt but was actually winding down in the first full week of August, illustrating how the recruiting calendar is simultaneously accelerating and telescoping while turning the phrase “Fall Recruiting Cycle” into an anachronism.  But aside from providing me with an opportunity to play the biannual game “Do These Formal Business Clothes Still Fit”? — spoiler: the answer is no, because, apparently, a #4fourandunder sleep schedule, combined with a poor diet and no time to exercise is not a recipe for model health, who knew? — OCI is when law students across the country get to put their interview skills to a pretty significant test.  In last year’s awardwinning[1] four-part series on Fall OCI, I discussed the various pieces of the Biglaw recruiting process, including the multiple interviews candidates will be subjected to before they can secure an offer.

However, those columns were a macro look at the interview process, and in working with Vanderbilt students, we will discuss Biglaw interviews in an abstract sense, but I also like to work with them to dig into questions and develop the strongest possible answers.  Thus, in the run-up to, and during, OCI, I often engage in a number of mock interviews with my students.  Since I am unable to bring the entire readership of Above the Law into my office for such a mock interview, I thought I would go over some commonly asked interview questions and the best way to approach them.  While not a perfect facsimile of the experience in my office — there is no digital photo frame in the reader’s line of sight that automatically shuffles in a new photo every minute as a way to see which students are actually focused and which are easily distracted — this should provide with the next best thing.  And while I have reams of practice questions at the ready for my student, I will only go over a few today, mainly because I am not Michael Lewis and, thus, am not getting $10 per word for this column — who could have guessed that print journalism would run into financial woes.

As I tell my students, you should always be truthful in your answers, so if the discussion below is not applicable to your particular set of circumstances, do not adopt the language.  But at the very least, this should give you a sense as to the best way to approach various questions and potential pitfalls.

The types of questions a candidate will likely encounter during their legal interview can likely fit into three broad categories: straightforward, behavioral, and hypothetical.

Straightforward

These are the questions that are the easiest to anticipate, but also the most likely to come during an interview, so one should have their answers down cold.

Why did you come to law school?

You might have read there has been a surge in law school applications over the past two admission cycles, in possibly large part to a certain overtanned individual on Pennsylvania Avenue.  It is perfectly understandable to have one’s motivation to enroll in law school be heavily linked to helping stop the actions of an increasingly lawless and reckless administration.  However, keep in mind the firm with whom you are interviewing.  If, for example, they have garnered a reputation for funneling a good portion of their attorney roster into the current incarnation of the federal government, it would be best to think of another reason for coming to law school.  Likewise, be wary of saying that your reason for coming to law school is because you have family members in the law or you were a liberal arts student without much of a post-graduation plan.  Law firms are looking for attorneys who will stay with them for a significant period of time, or at least long enough to generate a profit, which likely won’t happen if enrollment is the path of least resistance.

Favorite class?

There is no need to lie just to try and match your professed academic interest with the practice area of the attorney with whom you are interviewing.  If you really did not like Secured Transactions, that is okay.  However, ideally, your answer should track with the type of job for which you are interviewing.  So, if the firm is a litigation boutique, perhaps focus on talking up Civil Procedure of Criminal Law as opposed to your American Legal History seminar in which you wrote a paper on John Hart Ely.

Behavioral

Behavioral questions are a rapidly growing trend in the realm of legal recruiting.  These questions are open-ended, rather than one that could be answered with a single sentence, see, e.g., what is your favorite law school class.  The benefit for employers is that you can dig a bit deeper into not only a candidate’s background but also their thought process, which can hopefully provide you with a bit more insight as to how they will act in the future, since the entire legal recruiting process is about making an evaluation of projected talent in a way unlike any other industry outside of professional sports.

Describe a major setback or failure you have faced and how you responded?

No less an authority than Don Draper asked fresh-out-of-college Smitty, “I’m gonna ask you a question that was always asked of me when I was on job interviews . . . have you ever been fired?”  Here’s the thing, odds are you are going to make a mistake as a lawyer.  It is a stressful job and oftentimes you can be juggling a half dozen things at once.  Now, there are degrees of mistakes, and staying away from the egregious ones that cost your clients millions of dollars, or perhaps even their freedom, should be the goal.  But rest assured, some level of mistake will happen during your legal career.  This question is trying to get at how you will respond to such an inevitability by seeing how you dealt with it in the past.  Most everyone who attends law school has been a high achiever their entire lives and this is especially true when looking at the student body of the country’s most elite law schools.  It’s possible that one could make their way into Biglaw without having ever made a discernible academic or professional mistake.  How are you going to handle it when it happens?  Firms are not looking for someone who is going to wilt and need days to recover after making an error.  Providing a past instance of a mistake and, most importantly, how you overcame said mistake, can assuage many of your potential employer’s fears.

If I talked to a former boss or classmates, what would they say is a positive trait you possess?  How about a negative trait?

This question is a personal favorite.  Everyone is perfectly happy to say something positive about themselves, but this question spins it two different ways that require a bit more thought.  First, the question is not what you would say about yourself, but rather, what someone else would say.  This requires that you step out of yourself for a moment and understand how you are perceived by others.  Can you engage in that sort of introspection?  Second, while people like to talk themselves up, there is a hesitation to say anything negative, for fear it betrays some weakness.  But much like understanding that you will make a mistake as an attorney, the best candidates understand that they are human and have flaws.  Whenever answering this question, be honest about what your flaws are — though only to a point (e.g., if your biggest flaw is that you have an insatiable drug habit, keep that one to yourself for the time being) — but then explain how you are addressing those flaws and circle back to your best traits.

Have you ever had to work with someone you did not like or make clear they did not like you?  How did you handle that?

(Image via Giphy)

Attorneys can be jerks.  I know, be still one’s heart.  If you are going to work in Biglaw, or really a legal employer of any size, you are probably going to have a colleague with whom you do not get along with.  How will you deal with that situation when there can be so much riding on a particular case?  As with many of these behavioral questions, the evidence lies in your life to that point.  Explain how you can thrive in a professional environment, even if you are not going out with the office each night for drinks or inviting your team over for dinner.

Hypothetical

Attempting to project future behavior based on past actions is great, but can only take an interviewer so far.  There are scenarios that will come up in legal practice that no previous job can serve as the necessary preparation.

Imagine it’s Monday and you have three different partners come to you with assignments due on Friday.  You know it is physically impossible to complete them all in the allotted time.  What do you do?

I am hesitant to call this a hypothetical because this will almost assuredly happen.  Again, as a high achiever throughout one’s life, the instinct can be to say you will stay as late as necessary to get all the assignments completed.  That is likely the wrong answer.  Think of this question as the legal equivalent of the Kobayashi Maru.  There is no way to “win” this scenario; instead, you have to show your ability to speak truth to power and explain to someone that you will not be able to complete the assignment.  The trick is to explain you would let the affected partner know as early as possible, think Tuesday rather than Thursday night, and work to make sure the project would be completed by someone at the firm.

Successful interviewing is almost a prerequisite for landing a firm job through Fall OCI.  Familiarizing yourself with the types of questions you might face before walking into the interview room can help ensure your way to that Biglaw pay day.

[1] My Dad liked it.


Nicholas Alexiou is the Director of LL.M. and Alumni Advising as well as the Associate Director of Career Services at Vanderbilt University Law School. He will, hopefully, respond to your emails at abovethelawcso@gmail.com.