|
tacochat 4 eva
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
Taco train Booze train 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 16:18
|
|
|
Do the torts textbooks finally have a case to replace Byrne v. Boadle?The Daily Beast posted:ELO's Mike Edwards Killed by Hay Bale
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
wanna ride those trains
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 17:09
|
|
|
I was talking to a classmate at lunch today and she told a story about she'd accidentally offended a family law lawyer she had been working for by saying "I never want to be one of those attorneys who only make 40k" to which the attorney said "I only make 40k.". I told her we'd be lucky to make 40k in this economy and she tried to point me to the school's website where it showed amazing salaries for UC students but the graph isn't showing up. I tried to show her some of the stuff in the OP but she just kept saying "no no, that's national, this one was for our school". We asked a passing 3L about job prospects and salaries and he pretty much agreed with what I was saying but how can I convince her these graphics and statistics are inflated/misleading across the board? I keep getting sad because I thought we all knew what we were getting into but there are so many people who think they have a future in corporate law getting 100k+ from University of Cincinnati.  I am happy to be here but I'm not kidding myself about the job market. I'm sure maybe like 3 people will get a biglaw job but people are still actively turning their noses up at 40k. There are going to be so many sad people around here at OCI next fall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
Neko Sou posted:I was talking to a classmate at lunch today and she told a story about she'd accidentally offended a family law lawyer she had been working for by saying "I never want to be one of those attorneys who only make 40k" to which the attorney said "I only make 40k.". I told her we'd be lucky to make 40k in this economy and she tried to point me to the school's website where it showed amazing salaries for UC students but the graph isn't showing up. I tried to show her some of the stuff in the OP but she just kept saying "no no, that's national, this one was for our school". We asked a passing 3L about job prospects and salaries and he pretty much agreed with what I was saying but how can I convince her these graphics and statistics are inflated/misleading across the board? I keep getting sad because I thought we all knew what we were getting into but there are so many people who think they have a future in corporate law getting 100k+ from University of Cincinnati. Where do most of OCI students go get jobs afterwards? Can Cincinnati really offer that many jobs? Not to troll but I always thought Cincinnati was a lovely little city.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
Neko Sou posted:I was talking to a classmate at lunch today and she told a story about she'd accidentally offended a family law lawyer she had been working for by saying "I never want to be one of those attorneys who only make 40k" to which the attorney said "I only make 40k.". I told her we'd be lucky to make 40k in this economy and she tried to point me to the school's website where it showed amazing salaries for UC students but the graph isn't showing up. I tried to show her some of the stuff in the OP but she just kept saying "no no, that's national, this one was for our school". We asked a passing 3L about job prospects and salaries and he pretty much agreed with what I was saying but how can I convince her these graphics and statistics are inflated/misleading across the board? I keep getting sad because I thought we all knew what we were getting into but there are so many people who think they have a future in corporate law getting 100k+ from University of Cincinnati. welcome to the legal profession my friend
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 18:55
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Where do most of OCI students go get jobs afterwards? Can Cincinnati really offer that many jobs? Not to troll but I always thought Cincinnati was a lovely little city. Most of us will stay around Ohio or the midwest in general. I thought Cincinnati had a pretty good-sized legal market (Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland being the big ones I guess) but I was hoping to go back to Dayton anyway, which is actually a lovely little city. I have an externship with a federal judge in Dayton next summer and he's been telling me he wants to introduce me to one of the domestic relations judges, so I am a little more hopeful since I have some good connections going and I won't have any debt and I've not met a lot of people who are interested in family law. At the very least I won't die alone and penniless  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:I do have connections and money isn't a problem. As others have hinted at, "Entertainment Law" is pretty much doing regular transactional law for clients who happen to be in the entertainment business rather than in the financial or general business sectors. Any school hinting that they are specializing in entertainment law is trying to make up for the fact that they probably do not have good placement rates at all the top AmLaw 100 firms from which the large entertainment corporations and the entertainment law boutique firms do all their recruiting. The secret to becoming an entertainment lawyer is to do as well as you can, get into the best firm possible, and do your best to maintain your connections even though you'll be spending the better part of 3 years out of "the biz." Hopefully by the time you have graduated, all of your connections are still there. But seriously, just go into an agency now because all the law degree is going to do is, at best, track you into a firm. When people from the business look at your skill set, they'll go, "well, maybe you can become an agent."
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
University of British Columbia should have a good entertainment law program because don't they film a bunch of TV shows up there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 19:36
|
|
|
Neon Belly fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
I am going to go to UC Davis School of Law because isn't that where hollywood is? I want to be Jerry Macguire, but a lawyer, and with a pissant actress instead of a football player.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 20:45
|
|
|
Gadamer posted:Did you read the post before yours? Sure did, but how does that apply to Canada? Canada is the land of opportunity now that America is over. I bet if you went to UBC you could have Richard Dean Anderson as your client within a week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 20:51
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:I am going to go to UC Davis School of Law because isn't that where hollywood is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
I'd give anything to represent Zap Rowsdower
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Sure did, but how does that apply to Canada? Canada is the land of opportunity now that America is over. I bet if you went to UBC you could have Richard Dean Anderson as your client within a week. he's gotten fat and lazy since he quit SG-1 I think
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 21:01
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I'd give anything to represent Zap Rowsdower That's literally every client outside of our major cities though
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
Draile posted:Do the torts textbooks finally have a case to replace Byrne v. Boadle? oh god dammit drat iiiiiiiiiiiiiiit content: Did you hear about the playwright whose play was plagiarized in very small increments, she was Nichols and dimed
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 21:03
|
|
|
also got a first-edition copy actually in the mail of the hints on being a litigator book for $10 hell yeah
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 21:03
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:That's literally every client outside of our major cities though Sounds like a magical place...
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 21:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:he's gotten fat and lazy since he quit SG-1 I think https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aTnhO5b8zk I think Christopher Judge is going to need legal defense sometime in his future Incredulous Red fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Sep 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 21:04
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:That's literally every client outside of our major cities though I'm going into cultist fighting law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 21:50
|
|
|
Draile posted:Do the torts textbooks finally have a case to replace Byrne v. Boadle? Tangentially related, After reading this, I just accidentally turned a few pages too far in my Torts book, and we're reading Byrne v. Boadle for class on Friday. I wonder what else this thread can predict about my 1L classes! (Their lack of usefulness to becoming a lawyer? Arbitrary grading? Professors who worship at the altar of Socratic instruction?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 22:03
|
|
|
Mookie posted:I'm going into cultist fighting law. It always freaked me out that Scientology managed to litigate the IRS to a standstill. I wonder which firms they use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
Save me jeebus posted:At this time, I don't even have the truck, so we're ordering fresh, local, 100% vertically integrated from the corn field to the comal tortillas. Salsa right now include my handmade basic tomato salsa and salsa verde. Still working out the kinks in the hab sauce, El Yucateco is there for now. Are you for real about the taco truck? There's a massive oversaturation of food trucks in Los Angeles these days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
Mookie posted:I'm going into cultist fighting law. Cultist defense is where it's at. Those guys are loaded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Cultist defense is where it's at. Those guys are loaded. Don't drink the Kool-Aid though. All beverages on the compound are automatically suspect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
yadayadayada posted:Are you for real about the taco truck? There's a massive oversaturation of food trucks in Los Angeles these days. I'm not in Los Angeles.  Here, food trucks are much less common. In any case, it will be a while before I can afford it, as I'm running a cash operation and I'm only in a few places right now. I have to ease into it slowly, since I still need a day job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Cultist defense is where it's at. Those guys are loaded. It requires prestige too! The People's Temple's in-house counsel graduated from Stanford Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Stoen
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 23:12
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:UCLA As everyone has told you I'm sure, specialization is poo poo. I'm still a wide-eyed, hopeful 1L, so I won't expand upon that much. That being said, you know that even students at t14 schools are striking the gently caress out job-wise, right? When people say "Go to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford," they're not just being elitists - even 4th-ranked Columbia has had some lovely OCI lately. My friend at GULC is 0 for 12 on interviews. Ask yourself if you're really, honestly going to be close enough to top of your class (close enough gets exponentially higher the further down the rankings you go) to get a job. It's no shame if you're not, but if you go and you gently caress up you're in a pretty significant financial hole. I mean, you say you've got connections and maybe that will pan out for you but poo poo is really crazy for a lot of law students right now. You may find 2Ls and 3Ls eating your heart to steal your connections by voodoo magics. Wait, re-reading your posts: you're taking the Sept./Oct. LSAT? And expecting a 6+ point bump from your latest practice test to the real thing? You do know that most people experience a 3-5 point decline from their peak practice score, right? I'm not being sarcastic or giving you poo poo, but my advice would be to sit this cycle out. Cancel your LSAT after you take it, and really, really put your balls to the wall for the June test next year. In the meantime, reevaluate what you want out of law school and whether it's the right choice for you. You say you can join an agency if you don't go to law school - do that for a year. It'll make you a more interesting candidate for schools (well, outside the West Coast at least) and give you some of that supposedly invaluable real world experience. Plus, you don't get hosed by rolling admissions (hint: 3 schools replied to me before the September test scores came out. Spots do get filled.) and you can get your application together with a more critical eye. Are you still in undergrad or did you graduate already?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:That being said, you know that even students at t14 schools are striking the gently caress out job-wise, right? When people say "Go to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford," they're not just being elitists - even 4th-ranked Columbia has had some lovely OCI lately. harvard and jack poo poo here don't go
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 00:45
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:When people say "Go to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford," they're not just being elitists - even 4th-ranked Columbia has had some lovely OCI lately. For Columbia 3L OCI, there were so many people and so few slots most people only got their first choice. As in they got one interview total out of OCI (I assume if you really needed it though you could pick up vacated slots, as you had to sign up before you knew if you were getting an offer).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
Mookie posted:I'm going into cultist fighting law. I'm going to make a new legal tradition where lawyers settle litigation via no-holds-barred hand-to-hand combat. "Plaintiff requests trial by combat."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 00:55
|
|
|
Red Bean Juice posted:harvard and jack poo poo here Start spamming non-EIP NYC firms now. That approach worked for a number of HLS people who struck out at EIP last year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I'm going to make a new legal tradition where lawyers settle litigation via no-holds-barred hand-to-hand combat. If: 1. Your state incorporates "the common law" as it existed at the time of statehood statehood, (like mine) and 2. You are in one of the first 20 States in the Union. I.e., in before 1819 and not Louisiana. (not like mine  )You should be able to request trial by combat unless trial by combat is excluded by statute. (which is unlikely) So you east coasters and some of you east-of-the-mississippi-ers, get to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
Actually I think that the judge would just cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton and then you would just look stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 01:19
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Actually I think that the judge would just cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton and then you would just look stupid. That's baller.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Actually I think that the judge would just cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton and then you would just look stupid. How do you figure? Thornton won the right to trial by combat. It wasn't until the next year, 1819, that Parliament banned trial by combat. So if your State incorporated the common law as it existed at the time of statehood, and your State was admitted before trial by combat was abolished in 1819, you're good to go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 01:32
|
|
|
Illinois has a statute adopting almost all english law up until 1604, which means trial by combat and a bunch of other quality treats are in. I have cited Ashton v. Thornton and other cases with the relevent Illinois statute in briefs, but my supervisors disagree about asking to try matters on defendant's body with oaken clubs. I think my first attempt was just "def. br. says they can have jury and bench trials, but an interesting third possibility exists..." Anyway, today turned into a parade of reasonable doubt arguments. I started the day watching an appellate argument where the defense attorney had literally one argument, reasonable doubt, which was constantly shot down. Then I got a brief wherein defendant argues sufficiency of the evidence on an issue where he has the burden of proof.  also yes gj making yourself look dumber than usual, billion dollar whatever Lykourgos fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Sep 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
Actually, no. Trial by battle was only possible in "appeals of death," in which a family member or someone else instituted a private prosecution after the state trial failed. That was the issue in Ashford v. Thornton, in which the scrawny brother charges Thornton again - which is why it's Thornton v. Ashford, not Thornton v. Regina. Since it's not like I can privately prosecute you for doing something (and certainly not for the death penalty), it seems that this element of the common law could not have been imported into the States. It's a procedural problem more than anything else. cf Grosso v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 50 N.J.L. 317 People ex rel. Swanson v. Fisher, 340 Ill. 250 Fay v. Parker, 53 N.H. 342 billion dollar bitch fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Sep 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 02:14
|
|