|
billion dollar bitch posted:I think he was referring to something more along the lines of http://www.law.nyu.edu/admissions/jdadmissions/dualdegreeprograms/princetonuniversity/index.htm billion dollar bitch posted:Also, why does nobody think anything about my idea? If this is for who I think it is (Greenawalt?), I don't think he really cares what you write about, unless you want to make a big deal out of it, like submit it to a law review somewhere. I wrote 17 pages of crap for my paper, he gave me an A- and a sign-off on major writing credit. But more seriously, how would a judge, having laid out the possibilities of interpretation, justify his or her choice of the normative principles chosen to guide the process of selecting the "best" interpretation? Where do such principles come from? And just how much precedential weight should be given to an opinion structured as a description of the process by which the judge derived multiple possible interpretations of a statute, and let certain normative principles guide him to the best one? What if the same normative principles a judge used in one case militates toward an alternative interpretation in another case with different factual circumstances? Should briefs argue normative principles that the judge should follow, rather than case citations? If so, do the words of the statute really matter anymore?
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Adar posted:Isn't Quinn NYC like 20 people, though? I think qe nyc has about as many attorneys as qe la
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 08:11
|
|
|
Transcendi posted:But more seriously, how would a judge, having laid out the possibilities of interpretation, justify his or her choice of the normative principles chosen to guide the process of selecting the "best" interpretation? Where do such principles come from? Those are good points! I don't know the answer to them! Although if you look at it, there isn't really any sort of binding precedent in the federal system for exactly how to interpret statutes. The issue is re-argued every single time a case comes before the Supreme Court. Gluck found that this isn't necessarily the case in state courts, though... Yes it's for KGreen. I think it'd be at least as valid to argue normative principles as it would be to argue based on prior precedent. billion dollar bitch fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Oct 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 11:43
|
|
|
Just become a legal realistic Transcendi. It's so much easier when you just realize that they're all just makin' it up as they go along.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 12:34
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Those are good points! I don't know the answer to them! Look at what happens in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago. The majority tries to sneak in a new canon of construction and 4 judges flip their poo poo and that's why you don't hear about the "affirmative intention" canon. And what about when principles conflict? Do you just Llwellyn it up and create another principle that establishes the goal you're reaching for? How do you introduce new principles without counteracting existing ones? Then are you not just creating a system of precedent without the bluebook citation? A cool book you may want to look at that helps me understand statutory interpretation is "Metaphors we live by" by Lakoff and Johnson. It's a great book and I used it as the basis for so many bullshit humanities papers in undergrad. On top of that, think about the massive amount of money that would be spent litigating over whether this interpretation of the statute was "just" or was a case of ejusdem generis. The unpredictability of the judges' philosophical inclinations that day would make it super hard to assign a settlement value. Every case would end up reading like the Apology.A case precedent system is great because as soon as I get past all the hairy CivPro stuff, I can almost certainly assign a range of value that the case is worth if it went to trial. That saves a ton of money in actual trial expenses. I feel like half of the interpretation cases are douchebag prosecutors who are just trying to sneak another 5 years on a guy's sentence under some convoluted meaning of carried/used/involved. Omerta fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Oct 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 13:54
|
|
|
BigHead posted:You need to understand that you will literally never see the inside of a courtroom for at least 5, if not 10 years after being hired by anyone but a prosecutor / PD. And I really genuinely mean, from experience, that you will not see the inside of a courtroom for any reason. If you work at Dorsey or Faegre or some poo poo, you won't do anything but sweatshop motions 28/7 until you've earned your stripes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 15:31
|
|
|
Napoleon I posted:2L Summer: You've made a mistake in choosing NYC biglaw litigation and not wanting to work 300+ hours more a year for the same cash. All three of these firms will kick your rear end for the money. Latham possibly slightly less than Quinn or Kirkland, but probably not. evilweasel posted:Quinn Emanuel, hands down. You know, so you don't get laid off constantly. I think Kirkland mostly avoided those as well, other than some people in Chicago. Adar posted:Isn't Quinn NYC like 20 people, though? They're like 120 lawyers now. Aristokles posted:...then be a prosecutor, or pd. How is this even a competition? BigHead posted:Assuming, vaguely (oh, so, very vaguely), that this is not a troll... Agree with our resident ancient Greek troll here, but know that your mileage on getting what BigHead describes. BigHead's description is far, far more likely for Latham than the other two places. Kirkland and Quinn both put a decent amount of emphasis on getting litigation associates into the courtroom or the deposition room earlier in their careers. You still have to not suck and earn that privilege, but it can and does come sooner than some other places.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 16:18
|
|
|
It's so pathetic how elite baller biglaw associates don't even get to take a deposition until their third year, and god loving forbid they try a case on their own before they make partner
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 17:53
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:It's so pathetic how elite baller biglaw associates don't even get to take a deposition until their third year, and god loving forbid they try a case on their own before they make partner Eff me. e: Not that I really want to, it's just a pretty big hole in my resume right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/10/lawsuit-of-the-day-pass-the-wooden-dildo-please/Above the law posted:It’s a lawyer versus lawyer lawsuit, usually the ugliest kind of litigation. But the allegations made here are perhaps more bizarre than ugly. Don't go to law school: 1) No Jobs 2) Die Alone 3) Wooden Dildos
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
Torpor posted:http://abovethelaw.com/2010/10/lawsuit-of-the-day-pass-the-wooden-dildo-please/ The best part is how he was told not to go to his elderly mother's birthday because she'll have other birthdays. lawyerlife.txt
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
BigHead posted:You need to understand that you will literally never see the inside of a courtroom for at least 5, if not 10 years after being hired by anyone but a prosecutor / PD. And I really genuinely mean, from experience, that you will not see the inside of a courtroom for any reason. If you work at Dorsey or Faegre or some poo poo, you won't do anything but sweatshop motions 28/7 until you've earned your stripes. Just tuned in, but I wanted to comment on this. I was an associate at Dorsey-Mpls for four years. I argued several motions (dispositive in small cases, nondispositive in big cases) and second- or third-chaired quite a few evidentiary hearings (mostly for preliminary injunction, and most of which took several days and were out of state). I also took a few depositions and second-chaired more than 30 others with a partner or senior associate. Dorsey also has other programs for getting young lawyers courtroom exposure (mostly pro bono). I liked my experience at Dorsey quite a bit. I just like the hours and career path of an in-house attorney more. Edit - my experience probably isn't typical of most biglaw firms, but Dorsey does (or at least did) make efforts to get junior associates experience and help them develop trial/advocacy skills. ADHDan fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Oct 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 19:46
|
|
|
lmao at the concept of second chairing a deposition
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:lmao at the concept of second chairing a deposition When the deposition takes a day or more and involves more than 40 exhibits, it's nice to have a second chair. Edit: for long, key depositions it's also nice to have the junior associate on hand to have someone thinking about additional topics to cover/questions to ask, and so that there is another person with first-hand knowledge of what went on at the deposition to vet strategy, fact issues, etc. later on. This becomes even more important when the partner taking the deposition previously delegated the majority of the fact development to the associate, and the associate has a stronger understanding of the facts and issues than the partner. There are many reasons why it makes sense to sometimes have two people during a deposition. Second edit: Plus it's a great way for a junior associate to learn deposition skills while still adding value for the client. ADHDan fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Oct 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 20:45
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:lmao at the concept of second chairing a deposition I did this as a 1L Law Clerk. It was fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 20:51
|
|
|
ADHDan posted:There are many reasons why it makes sense to sometimes have two people during a deposition. Reason no. 1: the client is dumb enough to pay for it Reason no. 2: see above I get it, some issues are very complicated and big cases justify the expense (so you tell your clients). But the last time I had two lawyers in a depo was when I was a first year and I took the depo of the COO of a shipping company while a partner sat next to me on his laptop billing another file
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I get it, some issues are very complicated and big cases justify the expense (so you tell your clients). When the partner has delegated most of the background work, fact-gathering, etc. to the associate (which actually saves the client money), it makes sense for the associate to be present at key depositions. It's quality control. Of course it can be abused, but in many instances it's a pretty efficient division of labor. Having been an associate, and now working (among other things) as litigation manager for a large company, I do have some sense of where costs are driven up needlessly and where things can be managed efficiently. I have no problem paying for a partner and an associate to take a deposition, especially if I haven't been paying the partner's rates for the bulk of the legwork.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:lmao at the concept of second chairing a deposition Only time I've ever seen that was for experts, where you need the second guy who is either the case's specialist in the subject of the expert's report (or, conversely, the big picture guy helping out the technical wonk) or where it is some partner keeping an eye on the junior associate taking the deposition. Alternately, you'll sometimes have someone taking the deposition, along with the guy who's going to be trying the case (since some cases do go to trial) keeping an eye on the reaction. This usually only happens for the blockbuster witnesses like the opposing party's CEO. But yeah, generally LOL @ second chair of a deposition. For what it is worh, since we're talking about BALLER BIGLAW ASSOCIATES, by the time I was a fourth year, I had taken approximately 10-15 depositions, including experts, defended 5-6 additional ones, and argued probably 15 or so motions. Four or five were dispositive. Of course, I also could legitimately say that I was practicing appellate constitutional law for a billing client (some first amendment and immunity issues for online content providers) and had been the primary drafter of a number of federal appellate briefs, so your mileage may vary. Especially since billing like I do gives you an extra 1-2 years' of real experience compared to a person cruising at 2000 every year. ADHDan posted:When the partner has delegated most of the background work, fact-gathering, etc. to the associate (which actually saves the client money), it makes sense for the associate to be present at key depositions. It's quality control. Of course it can be abused, but in many instances it's a pretty efficient division of labor. Why not just have the associate do the deposition and save yourself the extra couple of thousand? Unless this associate is some random first year or another equally lame thing, they should be able to do acceptably well. Mookie fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Oct 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 21:41
|
|
|
Fair enough. I wish I had more clients like you--not because I think you're a mark, but because it would be good practice to be able to train young attorneys, and the more people on some files the better, as long as they're all getting paid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
Here's what it's like on the Plaintiff's side: "Hey, what are you doing?" "Working on X." "Want to come to a deposition/hearing/whatever instead?" "Yeah, ok." "Want a raise?" "That'd be awesome!" "Hahahah just kidding, you're going to be poor forever."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
Mookie posted:Of course, I also could legitimately say that I was practicing appellate constitutional law for a billing client (some first amendment and immunity issues for online content providers) and had been the primary drafter of a number of federal appellate briefs, so your mileage may vary. Especially since billing like I do gives you an extra 1-2 years' of real experience compared to a person cruising at 2000 every year. e: And no client I've worked for has been willing to pay for an associate at a deposition. I've been the second at a few, but that time was just written off. e2: Appellate work is awesome. gvibes fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Oct 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:02
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Fifth year "litigation" associate (patent though), never taken a deposition or appeared in court. I have two good friends I went to law school with, one was a total law school bro and did the law review and was like #3 in our class, he works here in Chicago at a branch of one of the huge NY firms and he works like 80 hours a week pushing paper (but making bank) Other was more like me, part-time evening program to start, bare minimum of effort, middle of the pack in grades, terrible dresser, one testicle... he works shitlaw and was taking depositions and doing motion calls on his first day after being sworn in. I just had beers with him a couple days ago and he is trying his first case start to finish right now. (It's a slip and fall, but hey what can you do) He seems so much happier (albeit poorer) than my other friend, and at least has the time to come drink with me and my 9-5 rear end. I only know my Big Firm bro by his facebook updates at 9pm on Friday saying he is almost ready to head out from work after the rest of us are already half in the bag. Of course when I do see him, he can afford to treat the whole group so I guess that is nice for him. I'd ask him if he ever looked up from his Blackberry! There's plenty of people in this very thread who would've death gripped another dude's dingus all the live-long day for what that guy was being paid Defleshed fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Oct 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
Mookie posted:Why not just have the associate do the deposition and save yourself the extra couple of thousand? Unless this associate is some random first year or another equally lame thing, they should be able to do acceptably well. Because that's exactly what happened when I second-chaired depositions. I was a first/second year associate with no first-chair deposition experience, and the depos were of key players in multimillion dollar litigation. Was I capable of doing all of the fact development, legal research, even pleading/brief drafting? Absolutely. Did I have the training, skills, and confidence to properly depose an opposing executive when the case hinged on that testimony? Absolutely not. Also when you're talking about litigation over hundreds of thousands or millions, paying an extra couple thousand for a QC associate to sit in on the depo is just fine with me. I then developed deposition skills on smaller cases and pro bono work (e.g. I took a full-day deposition of a high-ranking police official in a civil rights action, which was an incredible learning experience). Naturally, as a client I won't pay for two attorneys to do a depo for a case under a couple hundred thousand, unless there's a real reason. Edit - I wasn't some random first year; I had excellent school credentials and was at a top-notch firm, but I don't think any assocaite one year out of law school should be taking linchpin depos in a big case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
So as not to delve too far off topic, I think there are ways a junior associate can develop trial/advocacy experience if you search them out (again, this is just based on my experience). First, you can ask around for smaller cases where you can take more responsibility. For example, if the firm has a client with small(ish) repeat cases, you can become the go-to person for them and get a fair amount of experience. Or if a big client has a smaller matter, if you have worked for them behind-the-scenes on other cases you may be allowed to take a larger role in the new matter. Second, if your firm supports meeting the pro bono minimum suggestions (I think 50 hours per attorney per year), you may be allowed to take a pro bono litigation matter with minimal supervision, getting both courtroom and client contact. Or maybe Dorsey just provided really good opportunities for skill development...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
from http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3356103&pagenumber=1#pti15Zachsta posted:It's true, the police can't charge anyone with a crime unless they personally witness it. Physical evidence isn't admissible in a court of law. Lots of stupidity up in that thread, woooow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Here's what it's like on the Plaintiff's side: I think I remember you from a few years ago - we PMd about law school experiences, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
entris posted:from http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3356103&pagenumber=1#pti15 I think I'm going to go set my building on fire. There aren't any cops here, so nobody is going to see me do it, so it's not like I'll get in trouble for it or anything. Peace out goons~ e: Although I think the guy you quoted is being sarcastic. The guy he quoted, on the other hand.....
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Here's what it's like on the Plaintiff's side: Let me run down BIG FED LAW for everyone: "Hey, what are you doing?" "Nothing." "Want to come to a deposition/hearing/whatever instead?" "Sure, we can get lunch at X." "Want a raise?" "That'd be awesome!" "Alright, it's all yours."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
ADHDan posted:I think I remember you from a few years ago - we PMd about law school experiences, right? Could be. I'm a rather prolific kvetchy kathy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:
Yeah apparently I missed the sarcasm, which I think is understandable given that the guy didn't give any of the usual indicators of sarcasm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
I'm thinking Quinn now, even though don't really want to.Aristokles posted:...then be a prosecutor, or pd. How is this even a competition? Because I want to make money/not do criminal law more? William Munny posted:I thought they Quinn works you to the bone, lets you regenerate flesh, then works you to the bone again just to make sure as well. That might just be LA though. Yes, although the jeans thing is a negative for me honestly. Also, the NYC office is 180 lawyers nowadays and growing. gvibes posted:I just assumed he was talking about looking for a US attorney job after 3-4 years. Ex A-USA's are like 90% of big firm trial lawyers anyways. Well, yeah, but you do get into court at Quinn and Kirkland to a lesser extent pretty fast. P.S. -- Not a troll.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
Napoleon I posted:Because I want to make money/not do criminal law more?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
Oh, a more specific question. If I do my summer or a year as an associate at Quinn, and hate it, what are the prospects for leaving vs. the others? Which has the best lateral prospects/best chance of getting a US Attorney gig?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
Napoleon I posted:Oh, a more specific question. oh my god go away
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
Napoleon I posted:Oh, a more specific question. The prospects for leaving after just a summer are that you get to be unemployed because practically no one in biglaw is hiring 3Ls and your biglaw resume will scare small firms/DA offices, etc. As for leaving after a year, I don't know for sure but I'm skeptical about what practical skills and experience a first-year would bring that would make you appealing to other firms (who have plenty of you already) or the U.S. Attorney (who has more experienced applicants to take).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Oddly enough, I have been the primary drafter of three appeal briefs, all in 8-9 figure cases. The Federal Circuit is a pain in the rear end to deal with though. Why the TECHNOLOGY COURT can't get on board with appellate ECF is beyond me. (Ok, so maybe I'm just bitching because I filed a merits brief there two weeks ago and had to deal with some stupidity from the clerk's office, but still). Also, appellate work blows unless it is from a case you were directly involved in at the trial court, but it is fun to say to impress other people, particularly law students who don't know better. ADHDan posted:Because that's exactly what happened when I second-chaired depositions. I was a first/second year associate with no first-chair deposition experience, and the depos were of key players in multimillion dollar litigation. Was I capable of doing all of the fact development, legal research, even pleading/brief drafting? Absolutely. Did I have the training, skills, and confidence to properly depose an opposing executive when the case hinged on that testimony? Absolutely not. That's fair insofar as we're talking about linchpin deposition, which I completely agree ought to be done by the senior partner on the case, if for no other reason than diplomacy with the client. However, I was thinking more about the mid-major depositions that form the bulk of most large case depositions - things like the VP of a division at the other company, or a senior employee involved in some set of communications, etc. Those usually are something that a reasonably with-it associate should be able to do. Personally, I don't think first-years should be doing much of anything. Even the smart ones tend to be exceedingly clueless. However, if you don't give them anything to do, you end up with equally clueless second years, and then it all spirals out of control. I try to be nice to them because being green sucks, but also try to avoid relying on anyone who isn't at least 18 months out of law school for anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 00:44
|
|
|
Around here, you can try your hand at cross examining witnesses during a felony trial as a 2L summer intern. The last couple of pages have shown Biglaw to be even more pathetic than I had imagined; years upon years of service = a couple of depositions to your name? What in the world are you doing during the meantime; don't tell me you spend your youth writing these mysterious "memos" I hear about
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 00:50
|
|
|
Aristokles posted:Around here, you can try your hand at cross examining witnesses during a felony trial as a 2L summer intern. The last couple of pages have shown Biglaw to be even more pathetic than I had imagined; years upon years of service = a couple of depositions to your name? What in the world are you doing during the meantime; don't tell me you spend your youth writing these mysterious "memos" I hear about You know all that evidence your officers or your agents (or whatever they call them in Illinois) develop for you as a prosecutor? Guess who does that in civil law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
Mookie posted:You know all that evidence your officers or your agents (or whatever they call them in Illinois) develop for you as a prosecutor? oh my god... flashbacks of 1L a civil action, comments about warehouse document review so the stories... they're true? I'm so sorry
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Aristokles posted:oh my god... The real thing is that, factually, most murders/gang prosecutions are relatively simple from a factual standpoint than basically any case that a major law firm handles these days. On the criminal side, have fun if you ever get into major frauds/money laundering prosecution. The truth is that there's no real way to know the case well without looking at the documents and piecing together what happened. Knowing the documents is not optional, and, in fact, is the quickest way to lobby successfully to be allowed to take a deposition or argue a particular motion relying on those materials.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 01:04
|
|