Yesterday a lot of people picked up on two tweets of mine that obviously caused a lot of misunderstanding. Many people interpreted the tweets as disparaging public interest jobs as jobs that law graduates would choose only if they had no choice. That's not what I believe, 1/

and it's not what I intended. I deleted the tweets that caused misunderstanding so that my words don't continue to seem to promote a view I don't hold. I included the screenshots here, however, for the context. 2/

The tweets did not mention public interest work, although many people apparently interpreted them that way. Specifically, the tweets weren't intended to imply anything about law graduates choosing public interest jobs because of a lack of other alternatives. 3/

Given the reaction to the tweets, talk is cheap and so you may not believe me. You don't need to take my word for it; just look at what I've written about public interest in the past based on analysis of data. 4/

I have extensively analyzed data related to law school employment outcomes. The data has consistently shown that public interest jobs are among the most competitive to receive, and that is always what I've said. Public interest jobs are most common at Yale, where 5/

half the class either goes into public interest or a judicial clerkship. On my blog, where I report my analysis of the data, here is how I have described public interest jobs. In each case, they are described as among the most coveted job placements. 6/

I don't think you can read these excerpts and conclude I could have meant to suggest that public interest jobs were people's "backup plan." I thought it was clear the tweet wasn't referring to public interest, but considering how many people interpreted it the other way, 7/

I have to admit it came across as ambiguous. However, I think looking at the background I've cited above, a fair-minded person would realize I wasn't disparaging public interest jobs as somehow "second choice." I can't expect everyone to have read everything I've written, 8/

so I should have been clearer. I don't know the motivation of most of those who criticized the tweet. I have to assume that most of them just misread my intention and reacted in good faith to what seemed like an outrageous assertion. I agree it would be outrageous, and it /9

isn't what I intended to assert. I would hope those who criticized the tweet in good faith would be willing retweet this thread to set the record straight. 10/

I always use my Twitter account to try to provide information that isn't widely available. I'm a contrarian and sometimes that means I get misinterpreted. But I'm a contrarian to provide new information, not to cause offense, and certainly not to say things that are /11

just incorrect. I'm sorry that I wrote the tweet in an ambiguous way, I didn't mean to cause offense, and I only hope that those who disagreed in good faith will also retweet this thread in good faith. /12

So what was the point of the tweet? It was simply that the harm of attorney misconduct tends to fall less on large corporations and much more on those with limited resources. I wish I'd just said that instead of trying to add hyperbolic references that distracted readers. /13

You don't think they're going to RT and say, "My bad, I guess I should have asked for a clarification first."?