I would do it unless you actually don't want any of the jobs offered. If you do want the jobs then I would go for it.

@John Galt: Yeah I agree with you on the value of networking but unfortunately the hiring organizations that contact my school to schmooze are generally not the right size (small), the right field (criminal defense) or from the right geographic location.

I have strongly considered the judicial internship idea, but I just can't get excited about it. I don't think the courts where I want to work have a "criminal" branch so I could end up spending an entire summer doing civil work. It wouldn't be totally wasted but it's not really what I want. Plus there's no money, and if I'm not doing exactly what I want then I want to get paid for it.

I think the prosecutor advice is sound in theory, but I could never work for the prosecution. I respect what they do, but the same drive that pushes me toward defense keeps me away from the state.

The yellow pages advice is excellent -- it's almost too simple

I figure if everything completely falls through, then I can just spend some time sitting in on trials as an observer, working on my Spanish, and otherwise just keeping busy but not too busy.

Thanks for all the advice so far (and more is welcome).

I'm a 1L at a good school with good grades. I'm hoping to make a career in criminal defense, preferably as a PD but if not then in small private practice. I'm thinking about summer employment. If my application to the local PD office doesn't work out, then my intention is to find a small/solo firm to work for during the summer. My plan is to mass mail my resume and related documents to all likely firms I find through Martindale, probably sometime in March, with the intention of starting in May.

Does this sound reasonable or am I making a miscalculation somewhere? Is a two month lead time from mailing to hopeful hiring too much, too little or just right? Is there a better way to find reputable small firms other than a Martindale search?

Ditto Balsenschaft.

Or to put it another way, Sallie Mae is doing exactly what lenders usually do: they charge more interest to people who are at higher risk of defaulting. If McIntosh College is the sort of institution that places its graduates into cashier positions at Rite Aid, then I too would be nervous about lending $20,000 to a McIntosh student.

The lawsuit is just about some lawyers trying to cash in. As a mechanism for social change this is completely inefficient. What would happen is:

1) Class action plaintiffs win.
2) Sallie Mae lowers its interest rate to the high risk group.
3) Sallie Mae (to keep making money) increases its interest rate to the low risk group.

Effectively you end up with the low risk group subsidizing the high risk group's student loans. Even assuming this is a desirable end goal, it would be vastly more efficient and fair to try to effect this change through the political process.

Class action suits have their place as an enforcement mechanism. They are a good way of, for example, forcing car companies and drug manufacturers to keep standards high. But they are not the appropriate mechanism for changing educational policy.