|
Omerta posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leona_Helmsley#Death My cousin the elevator repairman (tip for prospective law school students- he makes a lot more money than you'd think) worked on Leona Helmsley's elevator for a month once. He said he had never seen a more bitter, angry person and all she did was complain and yell at everyone for "trying to steal her money". Leaving the dog millions of dollars was just a final 'gently caress you' to the world.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
I did a circuit court clerkship  So among everyone in this thread, we have various state court clerks, and all the various federal courts except the Supreme Court, but that's one thing that if you have to ask, you don't need to know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 06:03
|
|
|
Mookie posted:I did a circuit court clerkship
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 07:03
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:I would like to know. Does one have to be the son of a famous lawyer? Or #1 at Yale or what? I know there are "feeder judges" but how do you get in with that? You have to clerk for the right circuit judge. You can go to a somewhat greater variety of schools than just Yale but you must do extremely well. She didn't have any "connections" before law school. She is living the law prof dream. Goddamn law professors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 09:10
|
|
|
Mookie posted:I did a circuit court clerkship My civ pro professor clerked for Justice Burger, he went to NYU and worked for Dorsey & Whitney before that, I'm not sure how he got the clerkship though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 09:26
|
|
|
I'm still trying for a federal circuit clerkship
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 14:27
|
|
|
nm posted:I know someone who clerked for the supreme court. That or you can clerk for a non-feeder circuit court judge and then get a Bristow fellowship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 16:08
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:I would like to know. Does one have to be the son of a famous lawyer? Or #1 at Yale or what? I know there are "feeder judges" but how do you get in with that? This is probably too many words for your question, but I've been roommates (frat house) with three. One was the usual law school wunderkind that worked every night until 2 AM and did it well. She had a 125 page outline for property that, unlike every other outline over 25 pages, was actually really useful and included every single detail ever discussed in class or in the book even two years later when I took the class; she then made the same kind of outline for every single class she ever took including the 3L gimmick courses. I'm not sure if she was her class's valedictorian, but the rumor was she had a > 4.0 in addition to being editor of the law review to match. The second one edited a con law book before law school and went to LS on a JD/PhD full ride instead of taking the HYS admission(s). He studied a lot but not nearly as much as #1. OTOH, he was also the definition of the one person in every LS class that is unambiguously smarter than you, as well as the only person in the class whose comments are worth taking down if you take notes. We studied for a torts practice exam together (hint: don't do this) and I'm still proud of spotting the one issue he didn't simply because it was probably the only time anyone in law school ever beat him at anything. Editor of the law review, etc. although he took a billion years to graduate due to the PhD part. If he wants a Supreme Court nomination someday, my guess is he'll be in the running (seriouspost). The third one studied enough to be on LR but wasn't in either category (although he was a year behind me so I might not know it.) I think he was more of an all arounder; he did enough academically to stand out and enough socially that he had some cool stuff on his resume/came off well in interviews. All three of them were nice people, but he was the best to simply hang out with. If you were in the first two categories you would already know it, so I recommend trying to be the third guy. The feeder judge thing is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion because if you're in any of these three categories (while on LR from a T14, that is) and have a good interview, chances are you'll get picked. It's really about standing out in some way to get there in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 16:09
|
|
|
Just got an interview with a federal magistrate judge. I don't know how prestigious that is, but it's probably better than the job offer I have at the moment, pay-wise and career-wise. Anyone here clerk for a magistrate judge and willing to share some insight?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
Former Everything posted:Just got an interview with a federal magistrate judge. I don't know how prestigious that is, but it's probably better than the job offer I have at the moment, pay-wise and career-wise. I currently clerk for a federal magistrate judge and will try to answer any questions you might have. The work you would do to some degree depends on the district you are in. Some magistrates in districts with huge criminal dockets (the border courts for example) handle a LOT of general pre-trial civil work (scheduling, discovery, R&R's for motions), while in other districts, a magistrate might primarily do habeas and social security work. Your work, as a clerk, would almost certainly be primarily drafting R&Rs (R&R = Report and Recommendation), whether for civil cases which have been referred/consented to the magistrate, or for habeas/social security. In almost all instances (I think), the magistrate will handle initial criminal matters, ranging from signing warrants (anything but a wiretap) to handling the initial appearance after someone has been arrested. As a clerk, you probably wouldn't handle much, if any, work on these, unless a prickly legal issue pops up (which in my experience, hasn't happened, though my judge is totally cool with me sitting in on his conferences with agents and AUSAs about warrants and stuff, which is pretty interesting). Do you have any particular questions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 16:48
|
|
|
Criminal Procedure: Police can justify anything if they observe you acting with "unusual nervousness." So don't do it ok!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 20:11
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:Criminal Procedure: Police can justify anything This is the more accurate statement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:Criminal Procedure: Police can justify anything if they observe you acting with "unusual nervousness." So don't do it ok! + Police can justify anything if they observe you acting with "uncharacteristic calmness." __________________________________ Police can justify anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 21:28
|
|
|
joat mon posted:+ Police can justify anything if they observe you acting with "uncharacteristic calmness." quote:Reflexive reliance on a profile of drug courier characteristics runs a far greater risk than does ordinary, case-by-case police work of subjecting innocent individuals to unwarranted police harassment and detention. This risk is enhanced by the profile's “chameleon-like way of adapting to any particular set of observations.” 831 F.2d 1413, 1418 (CA9 1987). Compare, e.g., United States v. Moore, 675 F.2d 802, 803 (CA6 1982) (suspect was first to deplane), with United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 564, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1882, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (last to deplane), with United States v. Buenaventura-Ariza, 615 F.2d 29, 31 (CA2 1980) (deplaned from middle); United States v. Sullivan, 625 F.2d 9, 12 (CA4 1980) (one-way tickets), with United States v. Craemer, 555 F.2d 594, 595 (CA6 1977) (round-trip tickets), with United States v. McCaleb, 552 F.2d 717, 720 (CA6 1977) (nonstop flight), with United States v. Sokolow, 808 F.2d 1366, 1370 (CA9) (changed planes); Craemer, supra, at 595 (no luggage), with United States v. Sanford, 658 F.2d 342, 343 (CA5 1981) (gym bag), with Sullivan, supra, at 12 (new suitcases); United States v. Smith, 574 F.2d 882, 883 (CA6 1978) (traveling alone), with United States v. Fry, 622 F.2d 1218, 1219 (CA5 1980) (traveling with companion); United States v. Andrews, 600 F.2d 563, 566 (CA6 1979) (acted nervously), with United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991, 992 (CA5) (acted too calmly) U.S. v. Sokolow, 490, U.S. 1, 13-14 (1989) (Marshal, J., dissenting)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
^^^^^^Judge Posner posted:Gilding the lily, the officer testified that he was additionally suspicious because when he drove by Broomfield in his squad car before turning around and getting out and accosting him he noticed that Broomfield was “star[ing] straight ahead.” Had Broomfield instead glanced around him, the officer would doubtless have testified that Broomfield seemed nervous or, the preferred term because of its vagueness, “furtive.” Whether you stand still or move, drive above, below, or at the speed limit, you will be described by the police as acting suspiciously should they wish to stop or arrest you. Such subjective, promiscuous appeals to an ineffable intuition should not be credited."
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
Texas Civil Procedure can blow me. "Yeah, yeah, yeah, gently caress you guys, we're the Texas Supreme Court and we don't give a drat what the law is, we make the laws! of nature! Green is blue and cats are now the only ones with the right to vote!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:I would like to know. Does one have to be the son of a famous lawyer? Or #1 at Yale or what? I know there are "feeder judges" but how do you get in with that? I'm going skiing with a couple SCOTUS clerks next month. I'll see if they want to join our thread. Adar posted:This is probably too many words for your question, but I've been roommates (frat house) with three. Why was there a female living in your frat house? HiddenReplaced fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Dec 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 23:41
|
|
|
There were three future scotus clerks in my summer class. One was actually kind of attractive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Why was there a female living in your frat house? Some frats are co-ed, even in undergrad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:I'm going skiing with a couple SCOTUS clerks next month. I'll see if they want to join our thread. Law school coed frat house
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 01:32
|
|
|
They do space law...
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 02:00
|
|
|
Daico posted:Texas Civil Procedure can blow me. "Hmmm how can I get everyone to buy my awful book despite my final exam having jack poo poo to do with what we learned in class or what's on the bar exam. I know, weekly homework assignments and randomly selected group discussions!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 03:27
|
|
|
Thanks for all the answers, guys. It's good to hear that it's not just nepotism
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
Phid house is a frat in the sense that they have one giant party per semester but not a frat in the sense that they're co-ed, have one party of any sort, and populated entirely by neurotic gunners.
Napoleon I fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Dec 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 07:25
|
|
|
Napoleon I posted:Phid house is a frat in the sense that they have one giant party per semester but not a frat in the sense that they're co-ed, have one party of any sort, and populated entirely by neurotic gunners. In theory a co-ed frat is cool. We used to let girls live in the house over the summer and it was awesome because there'd be about 25 bros who stayed (I always did because rent was 600 bucks the entire summer to live in a mansion) and then there'd be about 50 girls from all the sororities. Law School Frat would rule if it could be us running around eating tacos and drinking scotch and playing vids and poo poo, a law school frat with people who go on to The Elect I think sounds like a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 10:11
|
|
|
sigmachiev posted:Law School Frat would rule if it could be us running around eating tacos and drinking scotch and playing vids L/LS MT Frat House: Double Secret Probation
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 14:31
|
|
|
Napoleon I posted:Phid house is a frat in the sense that they have one giant party per semester but not a frat in the sense that they're co-ed, have one party of any sort, and populated entirely by neurotic gunners. My Phid had zero neurotic gunners. It was fantastic when I went there specifically because a large chunk of us never went to class  Phid was so chill they let my then-GF, now-wife who wasn't a law student move in with me and then made her security manager over the summer. Aww.Adar fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Dec 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
Napoleon I posted:Phid house is a frat in the sense that they have one giant party per semester but not a frat in the sense that they're co-ed, have one party of any sort, and populated entirely by neurotic gunners. I wouldn't say it's entirely neurotic gunners, but I only know a few of the current tenants. Maybe the rest all are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
Adar posted:My Phid had zero neurotic gunners. It was fantastic when I went there specifically because a large chunk of us never went to class Is Phid still tucked over behind South Quad? Or did you guys move into the old Beta house when/since you were there?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Haha do you have Albright You or Scraps got any info on what's *actually* on the exam?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
Daico posted:You or Scraps got any info on what's *actually* on the exam? Appellate procedure. Know it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
You guys might remember me, I was an 0L this summer asking about law school. I'm in law school now, for reference it is a top-20 school, in the midst of studying for finals. But I'm having a really hard time finding the incentive to cram for 4 days straight when I know that it's unlikely that: 1)I'll be in the top 10% of the class, required to have any shot at biglaw, for a variety of reasons; 2)even being top 10% and law review guarantees anything, as evidenced from some of the 2Ls and 3Ls I've met this year; 3) I'd even want to be a biglaw lawyer, or any lawyer for that matter, based on how much I hated writing memos, and how much I hate almost every single person in my class that I've come to know somewhat well. Snobby douches, condescending workaholics, and pretentious pricks who lie every chance they get to appear superior to others. These are my possible colleagues for the rest of my life. The only person I like is someone who wanted to do PI from the very beginning, go figure. I think I want to disenroll. I'm only 10k in debt from the tuition for this semester. I could quit now and save myself another 10k, but one could argue that I never gave law school/law a real chance. However, I doubt anything will change in the next semester. Maybe things would change by 2L, but by then I'd be too knee deep to find a way out. I stil have to pay rent for the lease I have here so I'd probably get some min wage job to pay that off so I don't feel like a slimeball (parents paying the rent so far). I probably also wouldn't tell them until next semester is over, in the meantime trying to find a better paying job so that I'll have something to put on my resume for this time period when I get back to my home city. Also, I'm trying to make this decision now so I don't waste time studying for my last two finals. I know what you guys are going to say already, but I just wanted to air it out to the only people I really can at this point, anonymous interneters. I'm not the 1L featured in the ATL article a couple weeks back, btw, but it did give me some inspiration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 19:00
|
|
|
For one thing, if you are this close to your exams, your motivation to drop out may have a lot more to do with exam pressure / anxiety and less to do with long-term planning. While I think you should probably drop out, you should still study hard for two days and just take your stupid exams and then make your decision once the pressure is off. Basically, decision-making shouldn't be done in your current circumstance - too many distorting factors. Just buckle down and study, finish out the semester, (which is only a few days away), decompress for a few days, and then decide whether to withdraw from law school. And yes, I think you should probably get out if you don't want to be a lawyer and you don't really want to be in law school. At the very least you could take a year off and come back or something, if your school permits that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:Is Phid still tucked over behind South Quad? Or did you guys move into the old Beta house when/since you were there? It's always been behind South Quad AFAIK. One of Phid's best features.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
KimchiHead posted:
KimchiHead, you sound like a nice enough guy, so I am very calmly and politely going to ask you to remove the tampon from your rear end and put some effort into your studies before throwing all that money down the drain. The only law student worse then the neurotic supergunner is the neurotic super slacker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
KimchiHead posted:I'd even want to be a biglaw lawyer, or any lawyer for that matter, based on how much I hated writing memos, and how much I hate almost every single person in my class that I've come to know somewhat well. If you don't want to be a lawyer, you don't want to be a lawyer, and you should drop out, but there are areas of law where you don't write memos very often and where memo writing plays almost no part. If you have any interest in transactional law over litigation, I can say that I've yet to write a memo in my current position and my memos while in Bank Lending were very straight forward "Doublecheck what the UCC says about X" and put it in an email type assignments and occurred very rarely. So if you happen to like editing really boring, long documents over writing memos and can swing big law, there might be a place for you. Also, until you get your first set of grades back, you really don't know where you'll be in the class. There are a lot of quality bullshitters in law school who sound smart when they're creating their hypotheticals but can't just sit down and write a law school exam. You might be surprised to find where you end up. HooKars fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Dec 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
God GULC has the worst music that introduces the exam instructions video. It's all ominous and poo poo. In other news, it's time for my corporate income tax 1 exam! Yay!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
Daico posted:You or Scraps got any info on what's *actually* on the exam? CaptainScraps posted:Appellate procedure. Know it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
I told my boss I was going to start looking for another job. :/
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Elotana posted:Yeah the final is like 75% appeal deadlines and 25% everything else. Because so many of us are going to be handling appellate work coming out of law school as opposed to, say, discovery. To be fair the curve is exceedingly generous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 20:48
|
|