[blindlaw] blind attorneys

Mon Nov 22 00:52:58 UTC 2010

It's very interesting reading these threads.  As a Canadian it's very 
interesting when you hear sighted people suggesting that you try and get a 
job with the government because they tend to hire people with disabilities, 
I find that they do hire people with disabilities however they don't hire a 
lot of blind people.  If this statement was true that they hire people with 
disabilities then why is it that the governments are still uneducated about 
technology that blind people use?  If the provincial and federal government 
were hireing more blind people then why is the rate of employment so low 
with blind people?  Does it come down to qualification or just the unknown 
and the willingness to learn and give us a chance?  I find that people that 
do have a job it was the employers that gave them a chance.

Blaine
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "WB" <mruniverse08 at gmail.com>
To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys

This has definitely been a really intriguing discussion today!

I'm a blind paralegal and have had issue with finding employment as well
after losing my sight a couple years ago.

I know of only one other blind paralegal here in Houston, of course there
could be more, and my non-profit I started is making an effort to meet with
staffing agencies as well as employers to discuss the benefits of hiring not
only the blind, but the disabled in general.  there are a few blind
attorneys that I know of in the city.

I think, from my experience, that people just don't know and they're
uncomfortable dealing with the blind.  I'm not sure if it's from a past
experience or just not having encountered someone blind.  I think we go a
long way if we don't accuse first and then want to explain.  i guess I feel
this way because I have not always been blind and it's a really new thing to
me compared to some who are here.  i never saw a blind person other than on
TV and that was rare.  I'm not sure how I would have reacted if I had not
had the experience I have today.  There are many who wish to take a negative
approach to folks without first taking time to understand if they are simply
being discriminatory or simply have a lack of understanding.

Sorry for the long post.

Will

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Blaine Deutscher
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 3:52 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys

I've never understood Philosophy.  Mark if you can assist me in
understanding philosophy, might be my thinking about things, I've never
understood it.  I tried taking Philosophhy 150 however dropped it after
failing the midterm horribly.
Blaine
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ross Doerr" <rumpole at roadrunner.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys

    Mark, you're a philosopher?
Hey, someone help him get into law school before he gets away, . He can
argue with the best of us. For Pete's sake don't let him waste away his life
in some university philosophy department at low pay. He'll just end up with
a full beard and smoking a pipe like my old philosophy proff.

All kidding aside, the underlying issue here, repeat "underlying issue" is
the unemployment rate among dedicated blind professionals who have chosen
the legal profession as their life work, or as work, not necessarily  for
life.
We're blind and we don't fit the "norm" for employment strategies that seem
to work pretty good for our sighted counterparts.
So what are "we" going to do about it?
Can we agree that the usual BlindLaw "misquoted" and "mischaracterized" and
"Misunderstood my meaning" arguments are pretty well spent and have gotten
us the usual results. a clogged up list serve and nothing of substance to
show for it.
Lets try to set up some regional groups to strategize jobs and successful
tactics in our respective areas of the country.
How about pressuring bar associations to be pro-active for this particular
type of diversity? How about trying to rope in some of the real big-shot law
firms, I mean the movers and shakers who really dominate specified areas of
law in our respective states to put some action behind their well-advertised
standards of how much they really care about people out there.
Thats my suggestion as a starting point.
Who has another idea to add to, or replace it?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc Workman" <mworkman.lists at gmail.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys

> Last public posting from me on this.  I'm a philosopher, not a lawyer, and
> we like to argue too, but I won't clutter the list further.
>
> James said,
> Someone help me, does this not make sense (logical if one holds these
> beliefs/experiences?) irrespective of whether you hold the same opinions?
>
> I'm not sure that I ever implied that what you were saying was illogical.
> Please tell me what I said that suggested your position is inconsistent.
>
> When I emphasize the word *all* in your statement that all blind people
> should forego law school, it is not to point out some inconsistency.  The
> emphasis is to point out how strong a statement it is, how categorical it
> is.  It would be one thing to say that blind people should think long and
> hard before going into law school, they should talk to a variety of blind
> lawyers, they should be aware of the pitfalls, they should come up with
> well
> researched and carefully worked out strategies, they should have back up
> plans to fall back on, etc, and they should do all of these things before
> entering law school.  This would be a much more reasonable position, one
> that is more easily defended, and one that would not likely have received
> nearly as much disagreement.
>
> Of course, that is not the position you put forward.  Your position is, or
> at least was, don't bother, all blind people should forego law school
> entirely, period.  I think that's a far stronger position, less
> reasonable,
> harder to defend, and it was challenged as vigorously as it was because it
> is such a strong statement and because many felt that it wasn't warrented
> based on their and others's experiences.
>
> In sum, your position is perfectly rational, it's just not reasonable, at
> least not in my opinion.  But what is missing from this discussion, and I
> doubt they're available, are the empirical data regarding the success of
> blind lawyers, especially those blind before becoming lawyers, at
> attaining
> adequate employment both in comparison with sighted lawyers and in
> comparison with similarly qualified and educated blind people.  Until that
> evidence is available, it's going to be your experience pitted against the
> experiences of others.  And so far, you're the only one I've heard say
> that
> blind people should not bother entering the legal profession.  So if we're
> just basing it on experience, it makes sense to go with the more commonly
> held experience, and that seems to support the position that success is
> difficult for blind lawyers, but it can be, and is often, achieved, and
> blind people should continue to enter the profession while working to
> eliminate the barriers they face.
>
> Best,
>
> Marc
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "James Weisberg" <jimi-law at dc.rr.com>
> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys
>
>
>> Marc:
>>
>> You still seem to be missing my point.  Yes I did say all blind people
>> should forgo law school.  You rightly pointed out I stated, "you were
>> saying
>> that blind people should not try to enter the legal profession."  But
>> what
>> you don't seem to have grasped from my last post or the follow-up to the
>> one
>> that got this all going is it is ALL about the prospects of employment
>> vs.
>> the investment to get there.  If this is indeed the point I was
>> attempting
>> to make, and it was, why would I conclude a law profession would be swell
>> for some blind lawyers and not all??  Someone help me, does this not make
>> sense (logical if one holds these beliefs/experiences?) irrespective of
>> whether you hold the same opinions?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>> Behalf Of Marc Workman
>> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 11:50 AM
>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys
>>
>> I quoted your entire post, James, so I don't see how it could be taken
>> out
>> of context.  In what sense was it taken out of context? You're right that
>> you posted in response to someone else.  When I said it was the original
>> post, I meant that it was the original post to which the following posts
>> responded.  They were responding to you, not to the post to which you
>> responded, so it was, in an important sence, the original post.
>>
>> I realize you softened and slightly nuanced your original claim, but
>> nevertheless, your original claim was that, given the prospects of blind
>> lawyers, particularly those blind before becoming lawyers, blind people,
>> *all* blind people, should forego law school.  That was your claim,
>> entirely
>>
>> within context, and I believe it was that claim to which people were
>> responding.
>>
>> It's true that you didn't say blind people were not capable.  I certainly
>> didn't say you said that, and I can't recall if anyone else did.  You did
>> say that blind people should not go to law school, and I believe it is
>> that
>> assertion to which people responded.  My suspicion, and perhaps I'm
>> wrong,
>> is that you wouldn't have received such responses if you hadn't argued
>> that
>> blind people ought to forego law school.
>>
>> In any case, my response was to Ross who said that the public responses
>> were
>>
>> to a blind lawyer who simply wanted to no about the scarcity of jobs for
>> blind lawyers.  My point was that the responses were, in fact, to your
>> comments, and you were not just inquiring about job prospects for blind
>> lawyers, you were saying that blind people should not try to enter the
>> legal
>>
>> profession.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Marc
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "James Weisberg" <jimi-law at dc.rr.com>
>> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys
>>
>>
>>> Totally taken out of context Mark as the poster of your reference.  I
>>> was
>>> NOT the original post but was responding to an inquiry from a law
>>> student
>>> about job prospects.  Check out my follow up post for a more thorough
>>> explanation, less curt, of my point which I will repeat again here for
>>> you
>>> in case you just missed it:
>>>
>>> Taking into consideration the financial and sweat equity costs of
>>> obtaining
>>> the credentials necessary to practice along with the ridiculously high
>>> number of unemployed attorneys (counting only those blind before law
>>> school
>>> or their first lawyer position) my advice (as someone who has been
>>> practicing for nearly twelve years blind) is the "roll of the die" that
>>> the
>>> blind law grad will be one of the astronomical few receiving a job offer
>>> it
>>> does not make sense to me to pursue a law degree when there are so many
>>> other ways to be a productive part of society and not "roll the die"
>>> both
>>> financially and time-wise.
>>>
>>> The above reflection does not touch upon whether a blind person is
>>> capable
>>> of doing the work! So it seems like to me at least the "defensive"
>>> responses
>>> to which you defend perhaps were just "projection" of the poster's own
>>> "issues?"
>>>
>>> Respectfully~
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of Marc Workman
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 8:10 AM
>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys
>>>
>>> Ross,
>>>
>>> I don't disagree with what you say about the challenges facing blind
>>> lawyers.  I'm neither an American nor a lawyer so don't know enough
>>> about
>>> the details to question your statements, but I don't think anyone would
>>> claim that there are no significant barriers in the legal profession.
>>> That
>>> said, I think you have mischaracterized what led so many to respond with
>>> what were sometimes defensive responses.  Here is the email that started
>>> this all, in case some have forgotten:
>>>
>>> Curious:
>>>
>>> 1. Are there any blind, statutorily or otherwise, and EMPLOYED at
>>> all????
>>> I'm referring here to those with vision issue prior to employment.  I
>>> would
>>> suggest the numbers of such individuals should lead all those with
>>> vision
>>> issues to forgo law school entirely.  FACT!
>>>
>>> As you can see, the blind attorney did not contact the list just to see
>>> about what amounts to the scarcity of jobs for blind lawyers.  The blind
>>> attorney said that the scarcity of jobs should lead *all* those with
>>> vision
>>> issues to forego law school *entirely*.  It's one thing to point out all
>>> kinds of challenges facing blind lawyers.  It's another thing to say
>>> that
>>> these challenges should cause blind people not to enter the legal
>>> profession
>>>
>>> altogether.  It's one thing to say we need to work together to overcome
>>> the
>>> very real and serious challenges blind lawyers face in the job market.
>>> It's
>>>
>>> another thing to say blind people should look elsewhere for employment.
>>>
>>> Given the defeatest nature of the original post, given the pessimism,
>>> given
>>> the statement that blind people should forego law school entirely, I
>>> think
>>> the response has been pretty much appropriate.  I don't think the
>>> response
>>> has been to say if you can't do it on your own, then you lack courage.
>>> Instead, I think the response has been: sure, it's bad out there, but
>>> it's
>>> not *that* bad, and here is a bunch of anecdotal evidence for why blind
>>> people should not forego law school entirely.  This seems like an
>>> appropriate response to me.
>>>
>>> If you want to defend the original post, then you are defending the
>>> belief
>>> that blind people should not go to law school.  If you want to argue
>>> that
>>> there are serious challenges that make the legal profession difficult
>>> for
>>> blind people to enter on terms of equality with sighted people, I doubt
>>> you
>>> will find any disagreement on this list.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Ross Doerr" <rumpole at roadrunner.com>
>>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 8:19 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys
>>>
>>>
>>>>    I've read, with increasing interest, the various posts regarding a
>>>> glind attorney who contacted this list just to see about what amounts
>>>> to
>>>> the scarcity of jobs for blind lawyers.
>>>> The public responses to him have ranged from thinly veiled accusations
>>>> of
>>>> laziness to those who seem to feel  that if you can't get out there and
>>>> do
>>>
>>>> it on your own, you, in some way, lack courage. All of which were aimed
>>>> at
>>>
>>>> those, meaning blind lawyers, who haven't been able to find work.
>>>> If you log on to the U.S. Census board and check the jobless rate among
>>>> qualified, working age individuals with a disability you will get a
>>>> feel
>>>> for the jobless rate, and this does not include specific statistics on
>>>> the
>>>
>>>> blind, much less blind lawyers.
>>>> Everyone here has a valid point to make.
>>>> I will put my 2 cents worth in as well.
>>>> Look at it like this, lets say your SSDI benefit check is about $1,000
>>>> and
>>>
>>>> your SGA is just under $1,600 per month. These are valid benefit ranges
>>>> as
>>>
>>>> put forth by the SS ofice this past week here in Maine, which is, in
>>>> spite
>>>
>>>> of what the rest of the country may think, still a part of the United
>>>> States.
>>>> There are times I doubt that premise.
>>>> So, you have a total of $2600.00o per month to live on.
>>>> Out of that cost, you must pay rent (even with Section 8 assistance, it
>>>> can get tight), pay utilities, buy food, save for your bar dues and CLE
>>>> requirements (this latter for those of us who are admitted to practice
>>>> in
>>>> states with mandatory bars and CLE), then add in your medical co-pays
>>>> for
>>>> doctor appointments etc. Then there are the transportation costs, for
>>>> Pete's sake don't forget that. Your practice will likely be restricted
>>>> to
>>>> your immediate area until you earn enough to be able to pay
>>>> transportation
>>>
>>>> out of your area. Be careful with that, because you may be exceeding
>>>> SGA
>>>> if you can afford that kind of transportation.
>>>> Now remember that you may be violating state law or bar regulations if
>>>> you
>>>
>>>> try to practice on your own without legal malpractice insurance. Now,
>>>> lets
>>>
>>>> hope you can use CaseMaker on your local bar asociation web site,
>>>> because
>>>> after all of the foregoing you can't afford a lexis or westlaw
>>>> subscription to do your research so that you aren't committing legal
>>>> malpractice.
>>>> Anyone out there have free access to an accessible law library
>>>> anywhere?
>>>> Anyone able to juggle the reporting requirements for either a trial
>>>> work
>>>> deal with the SS or VR or just keep up with the SSDI reporting monthly?
>>>> I think you see where the above statement of facts takes you. If you're
>>>> going to try it on your own, you may very well be risking a violation
>>>> of
>>>> some law or regulation somewhere. Remember, if you are on SSDI, you
>>>> MUST
>>>> report any income you make during a month. To those of you out there
>>>> skilled in SS law, you see my point, there are ways you can violate SS
>>>> SGA
>>>
>>>> regulations and not even know it until it is too late.
>>>>   How many of our fellow sighted lawyers are this restricted?
>>>> The above is simply a statement of fact for a lot of lawyers who are
>>>> blind.
>>>> To be sure, things are different depending on what your particular
>>>> situation is. There are those who went blind after being in practice
>>>> for
>>>> years. There are those who were able to start volunteering their
>>>> services
>>>> for free until someone decided that they "really can do the work" - a
>>>> "test run" being a common practice that most sighted lawyers don't have
>>>> to
>>>
>>>> put up with.
>>>> Then there are those who haven't ever had to pay their own overhead, so
>>>> don't really know how expensive it can be on fixed income because they
>>>> work for a governmental office or large firm that pays it all for them.
>>>> Some of the foregoing may apply to some of you, to none of you or to
>>>> all
>>>> of you. How much of what does or does not apply to you is immaterial.
>>>> It is simply an observation that, even with an advanced degree, under
>>>> good
>>>
>>>> conditions, it is extremely difficult to try to work on your own. Those
>>>> of
>>>
>>>> you who have done your own accounting, secretarial work and research on
>>>> top of careful compliance with SSDI reporting regulations know what I
>>>> mean. Its rough to do. Not impossible, but still pretty darn rough.
>>>> Then, lets view the next level of plans that the government has to try
>>>> to
>>>> fix the depression that we are in.
>>>> When it comes to jobs, things are bad out there, anyone disagree with
>>>> that
>>>
>>>> observation?
>>>> So, the government, according to this mornings news broadcast, wants to
>>>> cut budgets and cut the Federal payroll by laying off several thousand
>>>> federal employees. The result is, as most of you can see (blindness not
>>>> withstanding) is that the congress is carefully planning to increase
>>>> the
>>>> number of unemployed individuals out there, while simultainiously
>>>> planning
>>>
>>>> to increase the retirement age to further restrict and generally
>>>> forestall
>>>
>>>> overall job availability on a national scale.
>>>> This mentality will, without doubt, trickle down to state and local
>>>> governments. So we're all in that boat sooner or later.
>>>> then they are going to go after social security recipients and cut that
>>>> area as well.
>>>> I admit that I don't know anything about how to fix the economy, but
>>>> then
>>>> again neither do the economists.
>>>> My point is just this - regarding jobs for the blind - it isn't good
>>>> out
>>>> there and its going to stay that way for a while.
>>>> If we don't band together and present a united front, we will always be
>>>> viewed as being what blindness experts (precious few of whom are
>>>> actualy
>>>> blind) define us as being. A low-incidence disability population that
>>>> requires a lot of assistance to get a job.
>>>> Is it up to us to solve all of our own problems in the job market? Only
>>>> to
>>>
>>>> a point. We can't do it all ourselves, and to assert that we must do it
>>>> that way is just kidding ourselves.
>>>> Do I have a job? Not any more.  I was laid off  at the end of
>>>> september.
>>>> That was my first full-time legal job, with benefits in 15 years. My
>>>> take-home pay was $31,000.00 a year, and that was to support myself and
>>>> my
>>>
>>>> wife. That didn't leave a lot to put away for savings. Up here in
>>>> Maine,
>>>> our tax rates can shame Massachusetts.
>>>> Like most everywhere else, Maine has a very significant unemployment
>>>> rate,
>>>
>>>> and  its actual level depends upon whether you want to believe what the
>>>> State or federal government statistics say, or the Democrats, or the
>>>> Republicans  or the independents.
>>>> Take your pick, it really doesn't matter in the final analysis.
>>>> So, is it harder for a blind professional to get a job than for a
>>>> sighted
>>>> counterpart?
>>>> Of course it is.
>>>> Arguing the validity of that fact serves only to keep our ranks split.
>>>> Solving the problem is the real issue.
>>>> Who has a crystal ball we can use to get the silver-bullet answer?
>>>> "The views expressed in this email are only mine"
>>>>
>>>> Ross
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "Aser Tolentino" <agtolentino at gmail.com>
>>>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 7:59 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Dennis,
>>>>> I am in Sacramento, UC Davis Class of 2010. The vast majority of my
>>>>> experience, like many of my friends, is in criminal prosecution. With
>>>>> budgets being what they are now, we've been lucky to find volunteer
>>>>> positions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Aser
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Dennis Clark
>>>>> <dennisgclark at sbcglobal.net>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Aser,
>>>>>> Congratulations!  I assume you are still on cloud nine today.  Where
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> California are you located?  I look forward to hearing from you.
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>> Dennis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aser Tolentino"
>>>>>> <agtolentino at gmail.com
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 12:13 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I guess you can count me among the unemployed blind attorneys now,
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> learned last night that I passed the CA bar. Regardless of
>>>>>>> disability
>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>> many in my class have found it difficult to find work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:56 PM, James Weisberg <jimi-law at dc.rr.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  My experience is similar Noel.  My point:  numerically speaking the
>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>> of the credentials are not worth the "chance" you will be one of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> "lucky"
>>>>>>>> one's to get a job offer.  Congrats on making it into the public
>>>>>>>> sector
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> believe that is the place for those such as us with vision problems
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> law
>>>>>>>> degrees.  I am currently in the process of waiting for a job
>>>>>>>> interview
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the Fed myself!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Nightingale, Noel
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 1:28 PM
>>>>>>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have lost track of your original point.   I hope this response is
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> target.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was blind during law school, worked as a summer associate for a
>>>>>>>> nationally-known firm, and received a job offer as a result of my
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> during that summer.  I was employed by that firm for over five
>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>> practice for the federal government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know of others as well who were blind before law school who got
>>>>>>>> jobs
>>>
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> private firms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also know that tremendous discrimination occurs but my own
>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>> tells me that it is entirely possible for a blind person to receive
>>>>>>>> offers
>>>>>>>> of employment to practice in the private sector.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Noel Nightingale
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of James Weisberg
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 8:48 AM
>>>>>>>> To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have to distinguish, I'm getting back to Dave's comments below
>>>>>>>> again
>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>> between employed blind lawyers who lost sight AFTER they had been
>>>>>>>> employed
>>>>>>>> and developed a rep before going blind as being competent from
>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> blind and thus never given the opportunity to develop such a rep
>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> can do it on their own as I have.  I just don't count blind lawyers
>>>>>>>> in
>>>
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> calculation if they lost their sight after they were established
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> point is NOT whether or not a blind person can do the work, I know
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> been doing it for over ten years now.  My point is the effort for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> credentials compared with the likelihood of a job offer means go
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> something else . . . that's all.  So I too would love the numbers
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> blind
>>>>>>>> lawyers never offered employment compared against employed blind
>>>>>>>> lawyers
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> were blind prior to ever practicing!!  I'm betting close to
>>>>>>>> "astronomical."
>>>>>>>> *smile*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of mfhurley at optonline.net
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 7:29 AM
>>>>>>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prospects for blind lawyers were not good in a great ecomony.  I
>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> Dennis' post wholeheartedly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: David Andrews
>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, November 19, 2010 5:26 am
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blind attorneys
>>>>>>>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > James:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > I would like to suggest that the unemployment rate for blind
>>>>>>>> > persons
>>>>>>>> > in most all, if not all fields of endeavor is low. While my
>>>>>>>> > evidence
>>>>>>>> > is anecdotal, I don't think that it is necessarily any worse for
>>>>>>>> > blind lawyers. Over the years I have known a bunch of blind
>>>>>>>> > lawyers,
>>>>>>>> > who are working.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > From what I read, the prospect for all lawyers isn't that good
>>>>>>>> > right
>>>>>>>> > now, so it is hard to separate the blindness penalty from the
>>>>>>>> > bad
>>>>>>>> > economy penalty.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Dave
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > At 05:55 PM 11/18/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>>>> > >Based upon my experience, Berkeley grad, top tier law grad,
>>>>>>>> > ZERO job offers
>>>>>>>> > >despite NEVER not getting an interview, combined with the
>>>>>>>> > extremely low
>>>>>>>> > >numbers of blind attorneys I can't think of what there might be
>>>>>>>> > to discuss.
>>>>>>>> > >My advice to anyone with vision issues considering law as a
>>>>>>>> > career is to not
>>>>>>>> > >waste their time or money they have a greater chance
>>>>>>>> > >statistically,
>>>>>>>> > >probably, of getting hit by lightening on the way to law class
>>>>>>>> > than ever
>>>>>>>> > >getting an offer of employment. Now if you come from money,
>>>>>>>> > >forget
>>>>>>>> > >everything I have said and just open your own firm! THAT IS
>>>>>>>> > THE WAY IT IS!
>>>>>>>> > >But there are always EXCEPTIONS. I personally wouldn't want to
>>>>>>>> > invest the
>>>>>>>> > >time and money law school requires on the hopes I'll be an
>>>>>>>> > >exception.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> > blindlaw mailing list
>>>>>>>> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
>>>>>>>> > info for blindlaw:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mfhurley%40optonli
>>>>>>>> ne.net<
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mfhurley%40optonli
>>> %0Ane.net
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> blindlaw:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/noel.nightingale%4
>>>>>>>> 0ed.gov
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> blindlaw:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jimi-law%40dc.rr.c
>>>>>>>> om<
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jimi-law%40dc.rr.c
>>> %0Aom
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> blindlaw:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/agtolentino%40gmai
>>> l.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> blindlaw:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dennisgclark%40sbc
>>> global.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>>> blindlaw:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/agtolentino%40gmai
>>> l.com
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>> blindlaw:
>>>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunn
>>> er.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3268 - Release Date:
>>>> 11/20/10
>>>> 07:34:00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> blindlaw:
>>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman.lists%40g
>>> mail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> blindlaw:
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jimi-law%40dc.rr.c
>>> om
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> blindlaw:
>>>
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman.lists%40g
>> mail.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindlaw:
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jimi-law%40dc.rr.c
>> om
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindlaw:
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mworkman.lists%40g
mail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40roadrunn
er.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3270 - Release Date: 11/21/10
07:35:00

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b.m.deutscher%40sa
sktel.net

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mruniverse08%40gma
il.com

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b.m.deutscher%40sasktel.net 