I almost never post such job announcements, but I think so highly of the Institute for Justice that I'm making an exception here. They are a first-rate libertarian public interest law firm -- none is better (and at most a few are equal or even close), even if one includes the more conservative outfits. My sense is that for quite a few of our readers, this would be a dream job, so I thought I'd post the notice here:
Tired of working on cases you don’t believe in? Longing to do something meaningful with your law degree? The Institute for Justice, the nation’s leading libertarian public interest law firm, is seeking two staff attorneys to join its merry band of litigators in its Arlington, Va., headquarters.IJ litigates cutting-edge constitutional cases in the areas of private property rights, economic liberty, school choice, and free speech in both state and federal courts nationwide. We’ve litigated cases before the U.S. Supreme Court including the Kelo eminent domain case, the Swedenburg wine direct shipping case, and the Zelman school choice case. We seek attorneys with 0-5 years of litigation experience, excellent communication skills, an entrepreneurial spirit, solid academic records, a passion for freedom, and a good sense of humor. Clerkship preferred.
We offer a competitive salary, full health, dental, and life insurance benefits, and a pension plan as well as a collegial, positive work environment and the opportunity to gain real litigation experience with meaningful responsibility in cases that will have immediate real-world impact. All of this is offered in a place that was recognized as one of the 55 great places to work in DC by Washingtonian magazine. If you love liberty and the law and fighting for our nation’s founding principles, this is the place for you.
Send cover letter, resume and writing sample, in confidence, to:
Human Resource Department
Institute for Justice
901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
Email: employment@ij.org
Or maybe they'll just grow. :)
Too bad they're in DC. I'm not leaving Cali for anything.
Also: "They are a first-rate libertarian public interest law firm -- none is better (and at most a few are equal or even close), even if one includes the more conservative outfits"
Shouldn't we keep our verbs consistent? Try: "It is."
IJ's reputation is enough to give potential applicants a feel for what they would be doing and the "why" is pretty obvious when you're talking about a libertarian public interest law firm. But let me just say that IJ has also managed to put together a smart, diverse, fun, and fun-loving group of people. Philosophies and political agendas aside, IJ is really just a fun place to work.
(or at least it was!)
FOr me, it was the perfect place-smaller sized but, b/c of its reputation, only litigating interesting cases. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Only drawback for me was D.C. and the amount of travel.
I don't understand the benefit of hiring inexperienced lawyers for mediocre salaries when already-wealthy lawyers who don't care about the money would probably be more useful. Is it a culture thing or a "young inexperienced lawyers will work harder for less money" thing? Someone enlighten me please.
This is a great place to work. Attorneys have considerable freedom to find and design their own strategic constitutional cases. We share a genuine esprit de corps, have fun, and fight the good fight everyday. It's great to represent deserving clients for free while promoting freedom.
The salary and benefits are not private sector, of course, but very competitive with government or public interest work.
So get in touch with us if you're dedicated to liberty, smart, upbeat, optimistic, inspiring, and want to change the world and have fun doing it.
"We seek attorneys with 0-5 years of litigation experience, excellent communication skills, an entrepreneurial spirit, solid academic records, a passion for freedom, and a good sense of humor. Clerkship preferred."
How does this Title I employer ensure there are no discirminatory hiring criteria when faced with a blind or vision impaired candidate:
1. who require assistive technology instead of print PAPEr to communnicate;
2. who was illegally discriminated against in law school with the resultant damages to the "solid academic record" but who is actually the best qualified candidate to meet the actual essential functions of the job;
3. who was excluded from clerkship due a judicial officers and courts discriminating against the disabled blind/vision impaired by devices such as pointing and uttering "Are you blind?"
Would the disabled candidate be excluded by imposition of the above-enumerated job hiring criteria in a discriminatory manner? Or, would the hiring committee be willing to modify such criteria to eliminate the perpetuation of prior discrimination upon which its stated criteria are predicated?
This is a question of equality of opportunity ...
And if other parties have discriminated against someone, how does this create an obligation on the part of IJ? It isn't their job to hunt down everyone who potentially discriminated against a law student in the grading or clerkship selection process. You might be thinking of the EEOC.
No. That works.
-Shane