O\u27Connor, John F.

Singer, Jana

Young, Gordon G.

Digital Commons @ UM Law

Maryland Law ReviewVolume 68 | Issue 2 Article 3Tributes to Editorial Assistant Patricia A. TriceJana SingerGordon G. YoungJohn F. O'ConnorFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlrPart of the Biography CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted forinclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contactsmccarty@law.umaryland.edu.Recommended CitationJana Singer, Gordon G. Young, & John F. O'Connor, Tributes to Editorial Assistant Patricia A. Trice, 68 Md. L. Rev. 287 (2009)Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol68/iss2/3\\server05\productn\M\MLR\68-2\MLR201.txt unknown Seq: 1 17-FEB-09 11:15MARYLAND LAW REVIEWVOLUME 68 2009 NUMBER 2 Copyright Maryland Law Review 2009TributesTRIBUTES TO EDITORIAL ASSISTANT PATRICIA A. TRICEJANA SINGER* AND GORDON G. YOUNG**For more than two decades, Patricia Trice provided the con-tinuity that kept the Maryland Law Review running smoothly.  For mostof those years, one of the two of us served as the Maryland Law Review’sFaculty Advisor, but Pat was the person whose advice really mattered.Pat’s title changed somewhat over the years, but an accurate jobdescription would have included: additional advisor to the students(and to us as faculty advisors), keeper of institutional memories, moodlifter during difficult times, and master of the mysterious knowledge(as it changed rapidly over years of automation) necessary to turn rawmaterial into a finished, published product.Pat was able to differentiate between business as usual, requiringthat students be allowed to learn by making the inevitable useful mis-takes, and serious problems requiring help from advisors or the LawSchool’s administration.  Her assessments of people and situationsseemed to us almost always right.  Over the years, both we, and succes-sive Editorial Boards and staff members, greatly appreciated her goodcounsel and the quality and intensity of her work.One of the most admirable things about Pat’s tenure was her abil-ity to adapt to varied personalities and work styles.  Each year broughta new student Executive Committee and a host of new staff members.Pat patiently introduced each group to the Law Review’s formal andinformal norms, as well as the technical aspects of producing a schol-Copyright  2009 by Jana Singer & Gordon G. Young.* Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law.** Marbury Research Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law.287\\server05\productn\M\MLR\68-2\MLR201.txt unknown Seq: 2 17-FEB-09 11:15288 MARYLAND LAW REVIEW [VOL. 68:287arly journal.  For many student editors, Pat was an invaluable confi-dante and source of advice, not only for Law Review matters but onlarger issues as well.  Moreover, Pat was able to help the Law Reviewmove from the dawn of the computer era to today’s fast-paced in-ternet age.Pat’s dream was always to retire to warm sands and gentle oceanwaters, and she is now living her dream on the Gulf Coast of Florida.Although we are lucky to have a wonderful successor to Pat, we missher greatly, and wish her well in the next phase of her life.MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS*JOHN F. O’CONNOR**Imagine working for a business where half of the sixty-employeework force changes every year, and nobody ever stays for more thantwo years . . . except you.  To top it off, your day-to-day bosses are fivepeople who take their jobs in the spring with no idea how you do yourjob, how to do their jobs, or how exactly the place runs.  And by thefollowing spring, just when these five bosses are figuring out how torun the business, they disappear, never (or rarely) to be seen again,1and they are particularly scarce when it comes to completing the workthat was unfinished when their tenure ended.  That, in a nutshell, isthe life of the Maryland Law Review Editorial Assistant, a life Pat Tricehas lived so uncommonly well over the past twenty-three years.Law reviews are unique because they are staffed almost entirely bylaw students.  By design, a law review has no institutional knowledgeextending any further back than the previous year’s volume, otherthan the permanent staff, which for the Maryland Law Review is a sin-gle administrative assistant.  Over the years, Pat has had good yearsand bad years, almost always dependent on the quality of the studentExecutive Committee elected each year to run the Law Review.  Someyears, the members of the Executive Committee are stubborn and self-absorbed.  Those are the good years.  The bad years are when theCopyright  2009 by John F. O’Connor.* The Who, Won’t Get Fooled Again, on WHO’S NEXT (MCA Records 1971).** Partner, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP.  B.A., University of Rochester; M.S.Sc., SyracuseUniversity; J.D., University of Maryland School of Law.  Managing Editor, 1994–1995, Mary-land Law Review.1. There are exceptions.  The much-admired Editor in Chief of Volume 54, TeresaLaMaster, has returned to the law school and now serves as Associate Dean for InstitutionalAdvancement, where she no doubt continued her terrorization of Pat.\\server05\productn\M\MLR\68-2\MLR201.txt unknown Seq: 3 17-FEB-09 11:152009] TRIBUTES TO PATRICIA A. TRICE 289members of the Executive Committee are really stubborn and self-ab-sorbed.  And if you think about the characteristics typical of those whomight aspire to run a law review, well, you can probably guess whetherthere are more good years or bad years.But Pat Trice handled the never-ending chaos of the Law Reviewwith incredible aplomb.  She was the Law Review’s principal source ofinstitutional knowledge, its primary historian, and the sole steward ofthe technology involved in the publishing process.  Pat guided theLaw Review through twenty-three volumes and some 28,000 pages ofarticles.  She ran the show from a time when the Law Review was “ed-ited” by literally cutting and pasting text, to the modernized, comput-erized process of today.  Pat, and only Pat, shepherded the Law Reviewthrough this evolution.  To this day, Pat can rattle off a rogue’s galleryof authors whose articles she found particularly nightmarish, eitherbecause they were poorly sourced, completely impenetrable, or un-conscionably boring.  And she can remember all the good authors,too, the ones who were kind, appreciative, and helpful (you can prob-ably guess which list is longer).Pat graciously accepted a whole new set of bosses each spring,provided helpful guidance, and never laughed (at least not to ourfaces) at the unrealistic plans and aspirations that would be recycledeach and every year.  Pat was a valued friend to the law students whospent countless hours darkening the Law Review’s offices over the pasttwo decades.  As she relaxes in retirement, I hope she takes solacefrom the one unique consolation that came from her job . . . she wasabout the only assistant in the law school who did not have to work forthe faculty.

Tributes to Editorial Assistant Patricia A. Trice

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons @ UM Law