Michele Campbell’s exciting new thriller, The Wife Who Knew Too Much , takes the reader to the glamorous and glitzy world of the Hamptons where things are not always what they seem and there are dark secrets hidden under the glittering jewels.
Michele has generously given us some of her time to talk about this much-anticipated new release. We talk about how her writing process has changed as her confidence as an author has grown, as well as how authors communicate with readers in a world dealing with a pandemic. She even gives us a sneak peek at what’s coming next!
For readers that are new to you, tell us a little about yourself.
I’m a former federal prosecutor, a wife, a mom and a lifelong reader. My background prosecuting serious crime in New York City made for a natural segue to writing thrillers. I’ve also lived in many different places, and have a love of both the glitzy, bright-lights-big-city and small-town settings of my books. All of my life experience goes into my writing. My books combine suspense, love, sex, money, the haves and have-nots, with a deep knowledge of crime and criminal investigations.
From your first novel up to The Wife Who Knew Too Much , is there a difference in how you approach the story or the writing process?
I trust my writing process more now. I know that inspiration will come if I just let my characters show me the way. I have confidence that I will manage somehow to shape my meandering first draft into something twisty and propulsive. Because I’m more confident and less anxious, I can relax and enjoy the craft. I’ve hit my stride, and I’m loving writing more than ever.
For the criminal elements of your stories, do you find yourself looking back to your prosecutor days for details or plot points?
Yes, though not so much for specific plots, but more for authenticity and atmosphere. I know how crimes unfold, how perpetrators behave, what they do to cover their tracks, how the police investigate. And I know that crime is […]
The COVID-19 pandemic has helped reveal just how outdated and discriminatory the New York bar exam is, and why we should strongly consider doing away with it. New York must take this opportunity to permit diploma privilege for law grads, not just for the class of 2020, but into the future.
Over several weeks, in response to the pandemic, the New York Board of Law Examiners (BOLE) announced a series of restrictions to the 2020 bar exam. These culminated in the ultimate decision to cancel the in-person exam in favor of an online-only version, and the issuance of an emergency rule allowing graduates to work in supervised environments until they can take the exam.
But the Board’s attempts to preserve the in-person bar exam are dramatically misaligned with the reality that law grads are living. It is not humane to ask people to invest the time, focus, and money required to prepare for the bar in this time of global trauma and social upheaval. It is not safe, secure, or equitable to require an online-only test. It is not realistic to tell people they can work temporarily under supervision — assuming employers will hire them — but will still have to find the time to study for a future exam.
It is not worth saving the bar exam.
Like other high-stakes standardized tests, the bar exam has its roots in racism and has a discriminatory impact today. Like other tests, it fails to appropriately accommodate takers with disabilities . Like other tests, it does not measure skills or understanding , rewarding law grads instead for having the economic freedom to prepare for it full time, and the ability to memorize information and perform under test conditions. Despite claims that it protects the consumer from unqualified lawyers, the bar exam actually protects attorneys’ bottom lines by limiting the supply of lawyers and inflating the price of both becoming and hiring a lawyer.
In an April 2020 report , the New York Bar Association recommended “consideration of a New York Law Certification program that would permit people to forego the Bar exam entirely,” because it found […]
Representational Image. (Getty Images) To become a lawyer in India you need to have a bachelor’s degree in Law – Legum Baccalaureus or Bachelor in Law degree commonly known as LLB degree. The course is either a 5-year integrated degree or 3-year LLB. The three years degree is only for those who already have an undergraduate degree like B.A., B.Com or B.Sc etc from a recognized institute or university. The Class 12 pass (10+2) candidates can opt for an integrated degree. This 5-year integrated degree, after completing some specific course, can be BBA LLB, B.A. LLB, B.Com LLB or B.Sc. LLB.
Types of the institutes
There are mainly three types of institutions to choose from for LLB.
1) Public university departments/colleges
2) National Law Schools
3) Private institutions
Candidates should have minimum 50% marks in graduation if he/she wants to get admission in the LLB course. There are mainly four/five entrance exams conducted in India for granting admissions in a law institute.
Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) ia an entrance exam for getting entry into National Law Schools. Some law colleges grant admissions based on the score in the Law School Admission Test – India (LSAT-India). All India Law Entrance Test (AILET) is another entrance exam for seeking admission to NLU, Delhi. SLAT (Symbiosis Law Admission Test) is a test for admission to SLS, Pune. Besides these tests some states also conduct their own entrance exam for granting admissions in the Law institutes – govt or private colleges.
Some of the popular entrance exams conducted in India for law admission
1) Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)2) LSAT India – Law School Admission Test.3) All India Law Entrance Test (AILET)4) AIL Entrance Test (Army Institute of Law B.A. LL.B Entrance Test)5) Symbiosis Law Entrance Test (SLET)6) BVP CET Law. 1) Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) CLAT is a national level entrance test for admissions to 22 National Law Universities (NLUs) in India to their under-graduate and postgraduate degree programmes – LL.B and LL.M. CLAT is organized by the Consortium of […]
I have an office. It has four walls, a door that can close, even a window … that looks upon an atrium. It is festooned with my college and post-grad degrees, an ever growing collection of pictures of my kids, and an assortment of Kansas basketball paraphernalia. I know my office exists. However, like many liberal arts majors, I took an undergrad class in cultural anthropology. We read Adorno, Horkheimer, and Baudrillard, discussed simulacra, and even watched Blade Runner . While I have memories of my office, and can even drive by the building, if I do not go in and see it with my own eyes, can I be confident it exists?
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I have been out of the office and working from home since mid-March. Given the babytown frolics nature of the U.S. federal government’s response to COVID-19, it is highly likely that this exile will continue for the foreseeable future. Considering that the virus has killed more than 150,000 Americans over the last four-plus months, including many in the legal industry — many are better suited to eulogizing the famed litigator, and COVID-19 victim, Stephen Susman , but I will use this space to mention two aspects of his life that might not get coverage elsewhere: first, were it not for his personal largesse, it is entirely possible that my salary earned during three years at the American Constitution Society would have been denominated in cans of Fancy Feast rather than dollars; second, without his unceasing focus and pressure on judicial nominations during the Obama administration, there would be far fewer judges able to push back against the ongoing Supreme Court auditions masquerading as jurisprudence currently unfolding in some federal courts across this country — my existential thoughts might come off to many as plaintive whines. But especially with law schools starting up, in some way, shape, or form, over the next several weeks, it feels worth exploring how those of us in career services can help students from a distance and how we all can cope with the ramifications of this ongoing […]
As it turns out, getting hitched and having kids is not a popular choice when you are saddled with $100,000 in student loans.
According to a recent survey conducted by the American Bar Association, young attorneys are putting off big life decisions like marriage, kids, and homeownership due to crushing student debts.
The ABA Young Lawyers Division conducted an online survey from March 1 to March 31, 2020, among more than 1,000 young lawyers in the early stages of their careers with a goal to quantify the impact of the educational debt on new lawyers’ career paths and life decisions.
The survey found that the median cumulative debt at law school graduation among those who completed the survey was $160,000, which is close to the national average of cumulative debt for all law school graduates of $145,500 in 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Education.
More than half of the respondents — 56% — said they put off the decision to buy a house because of their student debt, while 29% said they either decided to not get married because of debt or opted to postpone getting married. And almost half of the survey respondents — 48% — said because of their debt they are either delaying or deciding not to have kids altogether.
Young lawyers had to put on hold decisions like buying a car or going on vacation. Nearly half (46%) of respondents said they postponed or decided not to buy a car because of their debt and 33% said they got a less expensive car than they originally wanted. More than half (58%) said they postponed or decided not to take a vacation because of their debts.
“Participants said heavy student loan debt is affecting virtually every aspect of their lives,” reads the debt portion of the ABA’s 2020 Profile of the Legal Profession.
The Education Department is due to release an updated figure later this year. Among all law school graduates, 71% took out educational loans in 2016, which is down from 92% in 2008. Out of the 1,1000 ABA survey respondents, 40% said their student loan load increased notably since […]
"There has not been another time in my life where I have been surrounded by such a vast group of truly amazing people"
Hailing from around the world, McGill’s valedictorians are a diverse, multitalented group. When they came to the University, they brought with them their unique backgrounds, passions and ambitions. While they all praise the education they received at McGill, one thing is certain, the University has benefitted just as much for having them as valuable, contributing members of our community.
These outstanding students have earned the respect of the peers who they represent through their strong academic performance, leadership and commitment to making the University – and the world – a better place.
While COVID-19 made it impossible for them to deliver their respective addresses in in-person ceremonies, they still have important messages to deliver. The Reporter has conducted a series of interviews with this year’s valedictorians.
In our final instalment, we feature Debbie Yeboah, the valedictorian for the Faculty of Law. Debbie Yeboah, valedictorian for the Faculty of Law What is your hometown?
Why did you choose McGill?
So many reasons… It is a great university with an amazing reputation, it was an opportunity to live in Montreal, as McGill law students we graduate with two degrees instead of just one (a JD and a BCL), it was the first law school to send me an acceptance letter, it had the most affordable tuition fees, it would give me an opportunity to improve my French… the list goes on. Yet, perhaps the most important reason I chose McGill is because studying at McGill was kind of a dream come true for me. I mentioned this in my personal statement when I applied to McGill and in my valedictorian speech:
La première fois que j’ai visité l’Université de McGill, j’étais en 8e année. Les étudiants d’immersion francais ont pris un voyage éducatif à Montréal pour faire l’éxperience d’une environnement française authentique. Nous avons fait une tournée du campus de McGill, et je souviens, à l’age de 13 ans, d’avoir pensé […]