<p>So did She get in solely because they were looking for radical feminists? I don’t think you have all the info to make that call. I can only believe what you are saying if you were on the admission board.</p>
<p>California didn’t use the multistate bar exam in 1972 - did DC and Arkansas? If not there’s no reason the exams would have been on the same day(s).</p>
<p>This article - and the CCer’s response to it - is the reason why, as a Democrat, I’m cautious about a Clinton candidacy. Not for any substantive, rational reason, but because of the sheer, irrational, visceral, unthinking hatred a significant segment of the population seems to have for her. If someone forged “The Protocols of the Elders of Hillary” 30% of the American public would buy it and swap “clever” remarks about everything in it. Bizarre…</p>
<p>On a total side note: the correct abbreviation for Arkansas is AR, not AK. Can’t tell you the number of times while I was living in Anchorage that some bill would show up weeks late because it was sitting in a post office somewhere outside of Little Rock.</p>
<p>Now, back to debating Hillary’s ability to take two seperate bar exams in one summer. :)</p>
<p>kluge-I don’t hate her; I voted for her twice as first lady, twice as Senator and yesterday in the primary. I’m hoping she is telling the truth about taking both bar exams summer of '73 because I can’t imagine why anyone would lie about that. I’m not sure why I can’t find a history of the Multistate bar exam; no one seems to deem it worthy of a website!</p>
<p>“think Giuliani’s wife was the stake in his heart.”</p>
<p>Which one? "</p>
<p>He’s many things, but I don’t think a bigamist."</p>
<p>I didn’t intend to insinuate he was.</p>
<p>Sorry, you are wrong Kluge, California did use the multistate every year during the 1970’s. My problem with Hillary is not necessarily political. Everyone says she is one of the smartest women around, but where is the evidence of that assertion? Sure, she has street smarts and is a street fighter. She learned to hold her ground as a child and fight the boys on their own terms, according to her biography.</p>
<p>She is not well thought of among the majority of female lawyers I know. They resent the fact that she has always used connections to advance her status as a “lawyer” rather than doing the years of nuts and bolts work that most lawyers do. She never really “practiced” law, she only lent her name to deals and transactions. Who is ever made a partner of the biggest law firm of a state on day one? Did she ever go to court–no. Did she ever file a brief that she wrote? No. Rose Law Firm went to extraordinary lengths to prevent ANY information regarding her client base or the nature of her work being released to the press or the public. There is no paper trail. If she were a candidate for the Supreme Court this information would have to be released. Why doesn’t the same rule apply to a person running for the highest office in the land? Apparently for you this is an unfair question fueled by “hate”.</p>
<p>People who are afraid to think are quick to brand anyone as a hater who simply wants answers. Again, how did Hillary Clinton get as far as she did with so little evidence of accomplishment, or even the simple ability to pass a bar exam? You can’t have it both ways–tout her intelligence and accomplishment on the one hand, and refuse to let the light of scrutiny shine on her on the other.</p>
<p>nit-picking comment:
AK = Alaska
AR = Arkansas</p>
<p>mciver-I don’t think she was hired as a partner, it took a few years. A friend of mine from college who went to HLS clerked for a year in Little Rock then joined the Rose Law firm and moved to partner very quickly - she moved to AR because as a HLS grad she knew she could “be someone” in Little Rock very quickly as opposed to NY or SF.</p>
<p>AIM, the source of the “article”- Accuracy in Media</p>
<p>AIM claimed that Ken Starr was a conspirater with the Clintons-</p>
<p>And its list of funders- well, double ick- most of their funders are “foundations” - oil $</p>
<p>AIM- not the most honest, forthright conservative watchdog group</p>
<p>Any group that says Cronkite was a soviet pawn, tsk tsk</p>
<p>It is always a good idea to do a bit of a background check on groups like AIM-</p>
<p>“Who is ever made a partner of the biggest law firm of a state on day one?”</p>
<p>It took Hillary two years to make partner. She joined the firm in '77, made partner in '79…Check your facts better.</p>
<p>And if she was doing legal research and writing between law school graduation in 1972 and joining the firm in 1977 that’s seven years of pre-partner law experience so I wouldn’t call that a fast track to partner.</p>
<p>Okay, this is my last post on the matter and I 'm sure you’ll be happy to be rid of me. Just to correct the record, Hillary Clinton was HIRED as the FIRST female partner of the Rose Law Firm just days after her husband Bill was sworn in as Governor of Arkansas on January 9, 1979. Prior to that time she worked for a year or so as a law clerk for a judge in Arkansas and before that for the Children’s Defense Fund and in on a the Senate Watergate Committee. She also was an teaching assistant at a law school for a year, I think in Arkansas. Her actual work career prior to Rose was less than 4 or 5 years. She brought no business to the Rose firm, only her name and the connection to Bill Clinton, the governor. At Rose, she lent her name to a few cases but took a reduced partner’s salary because she spent very little time in the office. She spent most of her time sealing deals and sitting on corporate boards. This is a fact.</p>
<p>My point is that she got elevated to partner immediately because of her connections, not her legal resume. Unfortunately Rose Law Firm was so tarnished by the Whitewater, Madison Guaranty, Web Hubbell and other scandals that it dissolved during the latter part of the Clinton administration under the weight of indictments and resignations and never regained its former prestige. She has not worked as a lawyer since then and her husband resigned from the Arkansas bar following his impeachment. As a woman who has worked hard to achieve in law I have to laugh at the notion that Hillary was some sort of “brilliant” lawyer who labored for the downtrodden in her practice all those years. Her record does not substantiate the myth. </p>
<p>Now adios!</p>
<p>My D will most likely be going to law school and will become a lawyer- not to practice law in the classis sense of the court room venue, .but to have that knowledge, those skills, </p>
<p>I know many people in the poltical, social justice and other arenas who are lawyers but don’t litigate, do wills, or sue people…they use their legal skills in other ways</p>
<p>Mciver- very interesting post, don’t go away, thanks for sharing</p>
<p>“I know many people in the poltical, social justice and other arenas who are lawyers but don’t litigate, do wills, or sue people…they use their legal skills in other ways”</p>
<p>But they usually don’t become partner in top law firms, either.</p>
<p>It’s actually not that unusual for an individual who is well-connected politically to join a law firm as a partner, although it’s usually done as counsel. These individuals are not generally expected to establish a typical practice, but are sought after particularly for their contacts and the opportunities for business development. Former politicians do this frequently, and it would not be out of the realm of believability for a well-connected lawyer who happens to be the spouse of a politician to be hired for this reason. I’m not sure why people find this out of the ordinary. It isn’t.</p>
<p>I misread the title of this thread at first. I took it to read “Hillary IS History.”</p>
<p>Well, one can always hope.</p>
<p>"It’s actually not that unusual for an individual who is well-connected politically to join a law firm as a partner, although it’s usually done as counsel. "</p>
<p>I’ve done hiring in top firms for decades, so what you are saying is true, which confirms the point made earlier that she was made partner not because of her legal skills or experience, but because of her connections. Just like her presidential campaign.</p>
<p>I have to disagree with you a little, zoosermom (and a lot with mciver). Around here, practically every firm, even some fairly small ones, has one or more partners whose main activities are political. They tend to have really strong networks, and to be great business-developers, even though they rarely do anything as mundane as legal research or drafting. (Lots of my life has been spent being “the lawyer” for my politically-connected partners’ clients.)</p>
<p>You’re in New York. Ever hear of Dewey Ballantine? Davis, Polk & Wardwell? Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher? Those are big firms, and they were founded/led by, essentially, politicians. (That’s Thomas Dewey, John W. Davis, and Wendell Wilkie, each of whom, at one point, was an unsuccessful candidate for President.) And how about, more recently, lawyers like Robert Strauss, Abe Fortas, Lloyd Cutler, Vernon Jordan? They were not “of counsel” anywhere; they in fact dominated their firms.</p>
<p>I’ll bet that if you go to the largest city in every state, you’ll find the largest, most prestigious law firms each have several partmers whose role is to be a politically connected rainmaker. And, believe me, that doesn’t mean they are dumb, lazy, unethical, or anything else bad. Well, some may be, but lots achieve their success by being sharp as tacks, wonderful people with lots of experience and great judgment.</p>
<p>“I’ll bet that if you go to the largest city in every state, you’ll find the largest, most prestigious law firms each have several partmers whose role is to be a politically connected rainmaker. And, believe me, that doesn’t mean they are dumb, lazy, unethical, or anything else bad. Well, some may be, but lots achieve their success by being sharp as tacks, wonderful people with lots of experience and great judgment.”</p>
<p>JHS, I was AGREEING with you and making the same point. Obviously badly. Sorry.</p>