Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista

«‹›1550 »

TheBestDeception: Nov 28, 2007

billion dollar bitch posted:

That's the lovely thing about this: there isn't a curve for clinics, and usually everyone gets a/a-/b+. I've never heard of anyone getting a b- in a clinic class...

Eh, I thought clinics were graded on the seminar curve, i.e., the super easy one thats based on an A- average.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 19:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 00:47

Feces Starship: Nov 11, 2008; in the great green room
goodnight moon

Starpluck posted:

I came into this thread expecting some useful advice and encouragement to pursue my dream of becoming a lawyer. I do want to become one despite this thread pretty much being a �Why you shouldn�t be lawyer� thread and it�s stressing me out.

Answer the following questions and we can tailor advice to you:

1.) What undergrad are you attending currently? If none, how long have you been out of school?
2.) What was your undergrad GPA (NOT graduate school GPA or any other GPA)?
3.) What was your LSAT score?
4.) Why do you want to go to law school?

This thread SHOULD stress you out. Going to law school is the right choice for probably (vastly unscientific answer incoming) the right choice for between 1-3% of applicants. Answer the best you can and we'll give you the best advice we can. People will also be snarky but you will get good advice too.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 19:52

G-Mawwwwwww: Jan 31, 2003; My LPth are Hot Garbage; Biscuit Hider

Feces Starship posted:

This thread SHOULD stress you out. Going to law school is the right choice for probably (vastly unscientific answer incoming) the right choice for between 1-3% of applicants. Answer the best you can and we'll give you the best advice we can. People will also be snarky but you will get good advice too.

I passed the flow chart and even I think it was a bad idea.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 20:00

Feces Starship: Nov 11, 2008; in the great green room
goodnight moon

CaptainScraps posted:

I passed the flow chart and even I think it was a bad idea.

We should update the flow chart. Regrettably, I think it's a little bit optimistic at this point.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 20:03

jake1357: Jul 10, 2001

Feces Starship posted:

We should update the flow chart. Regrettably, I think it's a little bit optimistic at this point.

Some of the employment charts from the OP are also pretty outdated. e.g. the one based on employment data from the class of 2005.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 20:23

IrritationX: May 5, 2004; Bitch, what you don't know about me I can just about squeeze in the Grand fucking Canyon.

Feces Starship posted:

We should update the flow chart. Regrettably, I think it's a little bit optimistic at this point.

There are a lot of questions that need to be asked before determining URM status. Without asking those first, it's just assumed that someone, anyone, should apply.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 20:30

billion dollar bitch: Jul 20, 2005; To drink and fight.
To fuck all night.

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous. I'll start the process rolling to appeal...

I emailed her briefly to ask if it was a clerical error. She sent this back:

David,
That is the correct grade for the semester. I hope you have found courses that you will enjoy this term.
Jane

And yeah, they're supposed to track the seminar grading curve (but that's what I meant by no real curve).

billion dollar bitch fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Jan 23, 2011

# ? Jan 23, 2011 21:42

Colorblind Pilot: Dec 29, 2006; Enageg!1

Feces Starship posted:

We should update the flow chart. Regrettably, I think it's a little bit optimistic at this point.

Yeah I applied to law school based on that, thinking it was cool if I got into a T14. Apparently that's not the case at all anymore.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 21:42

HooKars: Feb 22, 2006; Comeon!

Out of curiosity how many 2Ls do we have from T14s that don't currently have jobs lined up for the summer? Or have jobs but got shut out of big law when that's what they really wanted?

# ? Jan 23, 2011 21:51

Feces Starship: Nov 11, 2008; in the great green room
goodnight moon

HooKars posted:

Out of curiosity how many 2Ls do we have from T14s that don't currently have jobs lined up for the summer? Or have jobs but got shut out of big law when that's what they really wanted?

At Columbia I was pleasantly surprised. Most of my friends are all set with at least something close to what they wanted. There are exceptions but I expected wailing and bloodshed to be prevalent but that's not the case.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 21:55

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

I know the conversation just circled transfer-chat not too long ago, but that was someone from a T14.

What would I need to transfer from a T30 to a high enough T10 so that the transfer (including traveling expenses, higher tuition, loss of grades/1L contacts, etc.) would be worth it?

I guess that's two questions.

The first question is what school would be good enough to beat out all of the negatives of transferring? Harvard, obviously, but anything else? I think there are some Columbia/Chicago people in here complaining about no jobs, so just Harvard? edit: or maybe not considering Starship's simul-post above?

Second question is what is the lowest minimum GPA that would not immediately put my application in the shredder?

# ? Jan 23, 2011 21:55

billion dollar bitch: Jul 20, 2005; To drink and fight.
To fuck all night.

Apparently, .8% of people in a seminar/clinic are supposed to get B-'s.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:00

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

billion dollar bitch posted:

Apparently, .8% of people in a seminar/clinic are supposed to get B-'s.

So, uh, was it running over a pet or sleeping with the prof's daughter and giving her an STD?

# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:01

Petey: Nov 26, 2005; For who knows what is good for a person in life, during the few and meaningless days they pass through like a shadow? Who can tell them what will happen under the sun after they are gone?

billion dollar bitch posted:

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous. I'll start the process rolling to appeal...

I emailed her briefly to ask if it was a clerical error. She sent this back:

David,
That is the correct grade for the semester. I hope you have found courses that you will enjoy this term.
Jane

And yeah, they're supposed to track the seminar grading curve (but that's what I meant by no real curve).

drat, that's cold.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:02

Adar: Jul 27, 2001

Green Crayons posted:

I know the conversation just circled transfer-chat not too long ago, but that was someone from a T14.

What would I need to transfer from a T30 to a high enough T10 so that the transfer (including traveling expenses, higher tuition, loss of grades/1L contacts, etc.) would be worth it?

I guess that's two questions.

The first question is what school would be good enough to beat out all of the negatives of transferring? Harvard, obviously, but anything else? I think there are some Columbia/Chicago people in here complaining about no jobs, so just Harvard? edit: or maybe not considering Starship's simul-post above?

Second question is what is the lowest minimum GPA that would not immediately put my application in the shredder?

1)It depends on the T30. Fordham -> NYU/Columbia is a pretty typical move and I think (but am not positive) it's still a net plus even ITE because it's practically expected for everyone eligible for Fordham's LR to get out. Random school -> MVB might not be if your current school is closer to your preferred area. Unlike a T14 -> X transfer I think t6 is probably worthwhile but I'd prefer using the acceptance to try and get scholarship $, instead.

2)It used to be top 10-15% but this is pretty old info so idk about now.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:10

entris: Oct 22, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

billion dollar bitch posted:

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous. I'll start the process rolling to appeal...

I emailed her briefly to ask if it was a clerical error. She sent this back:

David,
That is the correct grade for the semester. I hope you have found courses that you will enjoy this term.
Jane

Wow.

Seriously, did you do no work at all?

I've gotten some crappy grades in law school, and I was never surprised by them because I knew that I had done nothing and basically deserved it.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:15

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

[quote="Green Crayons"]
.

Omerta fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Aug 17, 2011

# ? Jan 23, 2011 22:26

Feces Starship: Nov 11, 2008; in the great green room
goodnight moon

billion dollar bitch posted:

Apparently, .8% of people in a seminar/clinic are supposed to get B-'s.

Yeah what happened man?

# ? Jan 23, 2011 23:13

Der Meister: May 12, 2001

billion dollar bitch posted:

Apparently, .8% of people in a seminar/clinic are supposed to get B-'s.

did she confuse you with someone else or something

# ? Jan 23, 2011 23:16

sigmachiev: Dec 31, 2007; Fighting blood excels

Green Crayons posted:

I know the conversation just circled transfer-chat not too long ago, but that was someone from a T14.

What would I need to transfer from a T30 to a high enough T10 so that the transfer (including traveling expenses, higher tuition, loss of grades/1L contacts, etc.) would be worth it?

I guess that's two questions.

The first question is what school would be good enough to beat out all of the negatives of transferring? Harvard, obviously, but anything else? I think there are some Columbia/Chicago people in here complaining about no jobs, so just Harvard? edit: or maybe not considering Starship's simul-post above?

Second question is what is the lowest minimum GPA that would not immediately put my application in the shredder?

Q1: It depends more on where you're transferring from, not the school itself but the region. If you're at Hastings, for example, then transferring to Berkeley and hoping to land somewhere in Cali makes a lot of sense. And also where you'd like to be for the next couple years in general should factor in. If you're at bumfuck nowhere right now but want to be in Chicago and can see yourself working there, then hit up UChi.

Q2: Top 10% but the vast majority who came to Boalt are top 5%. That includes both T2s and T1s and even a few T14s.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 23:34

billion dollar bitch: Jul 20, 2005; To drink and fight.
To fuck all night.

No, I did SO much work for that class. But she kept calling me out for things that were just part of the way I function as a student. For instance, I usually just remember things, instead of taking notes. I'm good at it: I was on track for Stone, at least, and I graduated college PBK.

So I wrote down phone numbers and things when I was interviewing a client (over the phone), but didn't transcribe the whole conversation or anything. And then during our meeting to discuss the interview, she asks me a fairly detailed point regarding the writeup that my partner had done (I had put the facts into casemaps, she had done the writeup). I didn't recall, and then she calls me out for not having notes, and for not going over my partner's work to check for issues I didn't agree with/understand (I had skimmed it, but I had been concerned with the other stuff). She mentioned this incident about every single time we had a discussion about things... apparently not taking notes is irresponsible and unprofessional, and I let my partner down by not going over her work.

Of course I took notes thereafter, but it was too late.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 23:41

Feces Starship: Nov 11, 2008; in the great green room
goodnight moon

billion dollar bitch posted:

No, I did SO much work for that class. But she kept calling me out for things that were just part of the way I function as a student. For instance, I usually just remember things, instead of taking notes. I'm good at it: I was on track for Stone, at least, and I graduated college PBK.

So I wrote down phone numbers and things when I was interviewing a client (over the phone), but didn't transcribe the whole conversation or anything. And then during our meeting to discuss the interview, she asks me a fairly detailed point regarding the writeup that my partner had done (I had put the facts into casemaps, she had done the writeup). I didn't recall, and then she calls me out for not having notes, and for not going over my partner's work to check for issues I didn't agree with/understand (I had skimmed it, but I had been concerned with the other stuff). She mentioned this incident about every single time we had a discussion about things... apparently not taking notes is irresponsible and unprofessional, and I let my partner down by not going over her work.

Of course I took notes thereafter, but it was too late.

Yeah if that's an accurate representation of your only transgressions, you really should consider looking into making some sort of formal appeal.

Above all, remember that this grade isn't the end of the world. It sucks and seems unfair but life will go on and it doesn't fundamentally undermine the hard work you've done to this point.

# ? Jan 23, 2011 23:52

Petey: Nov 26, 2005; For who knows what is good for a person in life, during the few and meaningless days they pass through like a shadow? Who can tell them what will happen under the sun after they are gone?

Just discovered this:

http://www.houseofrussell.com/legalhistory/alh/docs/rodell.html

FRED RODELL, "Goodbye to Law Reviews," 23 Virginia Law Review 38-45 (November 1936). posted:

There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content. That, I think, about covers the ground. And though it is in the law reviews that the most highly regarded legal literature--and I by no means except those fancy rationalizations of legal action called judicial opinions--is regularly embalmed, it is in the law reviews that a pennyworth of content is most frequently concealed beneath a pound of so-called style. The average law review writer is peculiarly able to say nothing with an air of great importance. When I used to read law reviews, I used constantly to be reminded of an elephant trying to swat a fly.

Now the antediluvian or mock-heroic style in which most law review material is written has, as I am well aware, been panned before. That panning has had no effect, just as this panning will have no effect. Remember that it is by request that I am bleating my private bleat about legal literature.

To go into the question of style , it seems to be a cardinal principle of law review writing and editing that nothing may be said forcefully and nothing may be said amusingly. This, I take it, is in the interest of something called dignity. It does not matter that most people--and even lawyers come into this category--read either to be convinced or to be entertained. It does not matter that even in the comparatively rare instances when people read to be informed, they like a dash of pepper or a dash of salt along with their information. They won�t get any seasoning if the law reviews can help it. The law reviews would rather be dignified and ignored.

Suppose a law review writer wants to criticize a court decision. Does he say "Justice Fussbudget, in a long-winded and vacuous opinion, managed to twist his logic and mangle his history so as to reach a result which is not only reactionary but ridiculous"? He may think exactly that but he does not say it. He does not even say "It was a thoroughly stupid decision." What he says is--"It would seem that a contrary conclusion might perhaps have been better justified." "It would seem--," the matriarch of mollycoddle phrases, still revered by the law reviews in the dull name of dignity.

One of the style quirks that inevitably detracts from the forcefulness and clarity of law review writing is the taboo on pronouns of the first person. An "I" or "me" is regarded as a rather shocking form of disrobing in print. To avoid nudity, the back-handed passive is almost obligatory:--"It is suggested--," "It is proposed--," "It would seem--." Whether the writers really suppose that such constructions clothe them in anonymity so that people can not guess who is suggesting and who is proposing, I do not know. . . .

Long sentences, awkward constructions, and fuzzy-wuzzy words that seem to apologize for daring to venture an opinion are part of the price the law reviews pay for their precious dignity. . . .

.[T]he explosive touch of humor is considered just as bad taste as the hard sock of condemnation. I know no field of learning so vulnerable to burlesque, satire, or occasional pokes in the ribs as the bombastic pomposity of legal dialectic. Perhaps that is the very reason why there are no jesters or gag men in legal literature and why law review editors knit their brows overtime to purge their publications of every crack that might produce a real laugh. The law is a fat man walking down the street in a high hat. And far be it from the law reviews to be any party to the chucking of a snowball or the judicious placing of a banana-peel.

Occasionally, very occasionally, a bit of heavy humor does get into print. But it must be the sort of humor that tends to produce, at best, a cracked smile rather than a guffaw. And most law review writers, trying to produce a cracked smile, come out with one of the pedantic wheezes that get an uncomfortably forced response when professors use them in a classroom. The best way to get a laugh out of a law review is to take a couple of drinks and then read an article, any article, aloud. That can be really funny.

Then there is the business of footnotes, the flaunted Phi Beta Kappa keys of legal writing, and the pet peeve of everyone who has ever read a law review piece for any other reason than that he was too lazy to look up his own cases. So far as I can make out, there are two distinct types of footnote. There is the explanatory of if-you-didn�t-understand-what-I-said-in-the-text-this-may-help-you-type. And there is the probative or if-you�re-from-Missouri-just-take-a-look-at-all-this type.

The explanatory footnote is an excuse to let the law review writer be obscure and befuddled in the body of his article and then say the same thing at the bottom of the page the way he should have said it in the first place. But talking around the bush is not an easy habit to get rid of and so occasionally a reader has to use reverse English and hop back to the text to try to find out what the footnote means. It is true, however, that a wee bit more of informality is permitted in small type. Thus "It is suggested" in the body of an article might carry an explanatory footnote to the effect that "This is the author�s own suggestion."

It is the probative footnote that is so often made up of nothing but a long list of names of cases that the writer has had some stooge look up and throw together for him. These huge chunks of small type, so welcome to the student who turns the page and finds only two or three lines of text above them, are what make a legal article very, very learned. They also show the suspicious twist of the legal mind. The idea seems to be that a man can not be trusted to make a straight statement unless he takes his readers by the paw and leads them to chapter and verse. Every legal writer is presumed to be a liar until he proves himself otherwise with a flock of footnotes.

In any case, the footnote foible breeds nothing but sloppy thinking, clumsy writing, and bad eyes. Any article that has to be explained or proved by being cluttered up with little numbers until it looks like the Acrosses and Downs of a cross-word puzzle has no business being written.

Exceptions to the traditions of dumpy dignity and fake learnedness in law review writing are as rare as they are beautiful. Once in a while a Thomas Reed Powell gets away with an imaginary judicial opinion that gives a real twist to the lion�s tail. Once in a while a Thurman Arnold forgets his footnotes as though to say that if people do not believe or understand him that is their worry and not his. But even such mild breaches of etiquette as these are tolerated gingerly and seldom, and are likely to be looked at a little askance by the writers� more pious brethren.

In the main, the strait-jacket of law review style has killed what might have been a lively literature. It has maimed even those few pieces of legal writing that actually have something to say. I am the last one to suppose that a piece about the law could be made to read like a juicy sex novel or detective story, but I can not see why it has to resemble a cross between a nineteenth century sermon and a treatise on higher mathematics. A man who writes a law review article should be able to for it a slightly larger audience than a few of his colleagues who skim through it out of courtesy and a few of his students who sweat through it because he has assigned it. . . .

Harold Laski is fond of saying that in every revolution the lawyers are liquidated first. That may sound as if I had jumped the track but it seems to me to be terribly relevant. The reason the lawyers lead the line to the guillotine or the firing squad is that, while law is supposed to be a device to serve society, a civilized way of helping the wheels go round without too much friction, it is pretty hard to find a group less concerned with serving society and more concerned with serving themselves than the lawyers. The reason all this is relevant is that if any among the lawyers might reasonably be expected to carry a torch or shoot a flashlight in the right direction, it is the lawyers who write about the law.

I confess that "serving society" is a slightly mealy phrase with a Sunday school smack to it. There are doubtless better and longer ways of expressing the same idea but it should still convey some vague notion of what I mean. I mean that law, as an institution or a science or a high-class mumbo-jumbo, has a job to do in the world. And that job is neither the writing of successful briefs for successful clients nor the wide-eyed leafing over and sorting out of what appellate court judges put into print when, for all sorts of reasons, some obvious and some hidden in the underbrush, they affirm or reverse lower court decisions.

Yet it would be hard to guess, from most of the stuff that is published in the law reviews, that law and the lawyers had any other job on their hands than the slinging together of neat (but certainly not gaudy) legalistic arguments and the building up, rebuilding and sporadic knocking down of pretty houses of theory foundationed in sand and false assumptions. It would be hard to guess from the mass of articles dedicated to such worthy inquiries as "The Rule Against Perpetuities in Saskatchewan," "Some New Uses of the Trust Device to Avoid Taxation," or "An Answer to a Reply to a Comment on a Criticism of the Restatement of the Law of Conflicts of Laws."

Law review writers seem to rank among our most adept navelgazers. When they are not busy adding to and patching up their lists of cases and their farflung lines of logic, so that some smart practicing lawyer can come along and grab the cases and the logic without so much as a by-your-leave, they are sure to be found squabbling earnestly among themselves over the meaning or content of some obscure principle that nine judges out of ten would not even recognize if it hopped up and slugged them in the face.

The centripetal absorption in the home-made mysteries and sleight-of-hand of the law would be a perfectly harmless occupation if it did not consume so much time and energy that might better be spent otherwise. And if it did not, incidentally, consume so much space in the law libraries. It seems never to have occurred to most of the studious gents who diddle around in the law reviews with the intricacies of contributory negligence, consideration, or covenants running with the land that neither life nor law can be confined within the forty-four corners of some cozy concept. It seems never to have occurred to them that they might be diddling while Rome burned.

I do not wish to labor the point but perhaps it had best be stated once in dead earnest. With law as the only alternative to force as a means of solving the myriad of problems of the world, it seems to me that the articulate among the clan of lawyers might, in their writings, be more pointedly aware of those problems, might recognize that the use of law to help toward their solution is the only excuse for the law�s existence, instead of blithely continuing to make mountain after mountain out of tiresome technical molehills. . . .

When it comes right down to laying the cards on the table, it is not surprising that the law reviews are as bad as they are. The leading articles, and the book reviews too, are for the most part written by professors and would-be professors of law whose chief interest is in getting something published so they can wave it in the faces of their clients when they ask for a raise, because the accepted way of getting ahead in law teaching is to break constantly into print in a dignified way. The students who write for the law reviews are egged on by the comforting thought that they will be pretty sure to get jobs when they graduate in return for their slavery, and the super-students who do the editorial or dirty work are egged on even harder by the knowledge that they will get even better jobs.

Moreover, the only consumers of law reviews outside the academic circle are the law offices, which never actually read them but stick them away on a shelf for future reference. The law offices consider the law reviews much as a plumber might consider a piece of lead pipe. They are not very worried about the literary or social service possibilities of the law, but they are tickled pink to have somebody else look up cases and think up new arguments for them to use in their business, because it means that they are getting something for practically nothing.

Thus everybody connected with the law review has some sort of bread to butter, in a nice way of course, and all of them--professors, students, and practicing lawyers--are quite content to go on buttering their own and each other�s bread. It is a pretty little family picture and anyone who comes along with the wild idea that the folks might step outside for a spell and take a breath of fresh air is likely to have his head bitten off. It is much too warm and comfortable and safe indoors.

And so I suspect that the law reviews will keep right on turning out stuff that is not fit to read, on subjects that are not worth the bother of writing about them. Yet I like to hope that I am wrong.

Maybe one of these days the law reviews, or some of them, will have the nerve to shoot for higher stakes. Maybe they will get tired of pitching pennies, and of dolling themselves up in tailcoats to do it so that they feel a sense of importance and pride as they toss copper after copper against the same old wall. Maybe they will come to realize that the English language is most useful when it is used normally and naturally, and that the law is nothing more than a means to a social end and should never, for all the law schools and law firms in the world, be treated as an end in itself. In short, maybe one of these days the law reviews will catch on. Meanwhile I say they�re spinach. . . .

Read it and weep (for your life, for your soul, and most of all, for your writing)

# ? Jan 24, 2011 00:01

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Petey posted:

Just discovered this:

http://www.houseofrussell.com/legalhistory/alh/docs/rodell.html

Read it and weep (for your life, for your soul, and most of all, for your writing)

Petey you read more legal scholarship than anyone actually in law school. I may or may not be counting professors in that statement.

# ? Jan 24, 2011 00:03

GamingHyena: Jul 25, 2003; Devil's Advocate

billion dollar bitch posted:

No, I did SO much work for that class. But she kept calling me out for things that were just part of the way I function as a student. For instance, I usually just remember things, instead of taking notes. I'm good at it: I was on track for Stone, at least, and I graduated college PBK.

So I wrote down phone numbers and things when I was interviewing a client (over the phone), but didn't transcribe the whole conversation or anything. And then during our meeting to discuss the interview, she asks me a fairly detailed point regarding the writeup that my partner had done (I had put the facts into casemaps, she had done the writeup). I didn't recall, and then she calls me out for not having notes, and for not going over my partner's work to check for issues I didn't agree with/understand (I had skimmed it, but I had been concerned with the other stuff). She mentioned this incident about every single time we had a discussion about things... apparently not taking notes is irresponsible and unprofessional, and I let my partner down by not going over her work.

Of course I took notes thereafter, but it was too late.

I have to agree with your professor on this one. She isn't calling you out because of your habits as a student, she's calling you out because of your habits as a (future) attorney. I don't care if you "just remembered things" for your final in underwater basket weaving in undergrad, failing to take notes and failing to go over the notes in a client's file IS irresponsible and unprofessional.

Taking detailed notes of client telephone calls and meetings isn't pointless busywork. You may THINK you have a good memory of what the client said because during the clinic you probably had, at most, a few uncomplicated cases. When you have dozens of clients calling about complicated legal matters that could stretch out for months/years, there's no way you're going to remember every conversation you have. Plus, a contemporaneous record of client interactions is invaluable not only for allowing other attorneys to see how the case is progressing, it will also help you when filling out time sheets. Most importantly, should the client should sue/grieve you in the future, having a contemporaneous record of who said what (and when) could potentially save your law license.

When your client sues you for malpractice after an unfavorable legal battle alleging you failed to inform them about a potential issue/defense 12 months ago, then I hope your memory is as good as you claim because "uh, I think I remember saying something about estoppel issues in January...maybe?" isn't going to cut it.

If your note taking got better over the semester then go ahead and appeal, but I do want to stress to all soon-to-be lawyers the importance of documenting client interactions.

GamingHyena fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jan 24, 2011

# ? Jan 24, 2011 00:17

Lilosh: Jul 13, 2001; I'm Lilosh with an OSHY

So, on a lighter note, new editions of textbooks and suggested hornbooks:

Big scam, or biggest scam?

# ? Jan 24, 2011 00:51

Petey: Nov 26, 2005; For who knows what is good for a person in life, during the few and meaningless days they pass through like a shadow? Who can tell them what will happen under the sun after they are gone?

The Warszawa posted:

Petey you read more legal scholarship than anyone actually in law school. I may or may not be counting professors in that statement.

I may not be in law school but I am still going to Die Alone so in that sense we are all in cahoots.

e: but seriously, that Rodell article is going right up there with Orwell's Politics and the English Language as my favorite critiques of writing of any sort.

Petey fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 24, 2011

# ? Jan 24, 2011 01:25

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Petey posted:

Read it and weep (for your life, for your soul, and most of all, for your writing)

That was awesome and I just noticed the date.

On another note, I have to put together a hypo for a fake hearing on state secrets privilege. It isn't for a grade or associated with a class. If any of y'all can think of a sweet hypo to debate about, feel free to post it here.

# ? Jan 24, 2011 01:26

Petey: Nov 26, 2005; For who knows what is good for a person in life, during the few and meaningless days they pass through like a shadow? Who can tell them what will happen under the sun after they are gone?

Omerta posted:

That was awesome and I just noticed the date.

The best part is that 25 years after the fact he came back with a second version that basically added five more pages of hating to the first.

Wiki posted:

Fred Rodell (March 1, 1907 � June 4, 1980) was an American law professor most famous for his critiques of the U.S. legal profession. A professor at Yale Law School for more than forty years, Rodell was described in 1980 as the "bad boy of American legal academia" (by Charles Alan Wright, "Goodbye to Fred Rodell," 89 Yale L.J. 1455, quoted in the [1] Pitt Law School Web site).

He was one of the leading proponents of the �legal realism� approach and railed against overly abstract and theoretical legal arguments. He was a harsh critic of the legal profession, which he described as a "high-class racket." In his 1936 Virginia Law Review article "Goodbye to Law Reviews" (quoted on a University of Denver Web site [2]), Rodell famously remarked, "There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content. That, I think, about covers the ground.�

Rodell himself never became a member of the bar, later explaining that, �By the time I got through law school, I had decided that I never wanted to practice law. I never have.�

Rodell Owned.

# ? Jan 24, 2011 01:30

billion dollar bitch: Jul 20, 2005; To drink and fight.
To fuck all night.

GamingHyena posted:

I have to agree with your professor on this one. She isn't calling you out because of your habits as a student, she's calling you out because of your habits as a (future) attorney. I don't care if you "just remembered things" for your final in underwater basket weaving in undergrad, failing to take notes and failing to go over the notes in a client's file IS irresponsible and unprofessional.

Taking detailed notes of client telephone calls and meetings isn't pointless busywork. You may THINK you have a good memory of what the client said because during the clinic you probably had, at most, a few uncomplicated cases. When you have dozens of clients calling about complicated legal matters that could stretch out for months/years, there's no way you're going to remember every conversation you have. Plus, a contemporaneous record of client interactions is invaluable not only for allowing other attorneys to see how the case is progressing, it will also help you when filling out time sheets. Most importantly, should the client should sue/grieve you in the future, having a contemporaneous record of who said what (and when) could potentially save your law license.

When your client sues you for malpractice after an unfavorable legal battle alleging you failed to inform them about a potential issue/defense 12 months ago, then I hope your memory is as good as you claim because "uh, I think I remember saying something about estoppel issues in January...maybe?" isn't going to cut it.

If your note taking got better over the semester then go ahead and appeal, but I do want to stress to all soon-to-be lawyers the importance of documenting client interactions.

Yes, this is a good point, and I appreciate you making it.

# ? Jan 24, 2011 01:38

Lilosh: Jul 13, 2001; I'm Lilosh with an OSHY

Petey posted:

The best part is that 25 years after the fact he came back with a second version that basically added five more pages of hating to the first.

It's not specifically about legal writing, but, just the other day, I saw this and loved it:

http://www.wimp.com/speaktypography/

It's a condemnation of the hesitant, wishy-washy, and unsure way we speak in recent years.

# ? Jan 24, 2011 02:01

Nero: Oct 15, 2003

BigHead posted:

How was it?

delicious

# ? Jan 24, 2011 02:10

Holland Oats: Oct 20, 2003; Only the dead have seen the end of war

GamingHyena posted:

I have to agree with your professor on this one. She isn't calling you out because of your habits as a student, she's calling you out because of your habits as a (future) attorney. I don't care if you "just remembered things" for your final in underwater basket weaving in undergrad, failing to take notes and failing to go over the notes in a client's file IS irresponsible and unprofessional.

Taking detailed notes of client telephone calls and meetings isn't pointless busywork. You may THINK you have a good memory of what the client said because during the clinic you probably had, at most, a few uncomplicated cases. When you have dozens of clients calling about complicated legal matters that could stretch out for months/years, there's no way you're going to remember every conversation you have. Plus, a contemporaneous record of client interactions is invaluable not only for allowing other attorneys to see how the case is progressing, it will also help you when filling out time sheets. Most importantly, should the client should sue/grieve you in the future, having a contemporaneous record of who said what (and when) could potentially save your law license.

When your client sues you for malpractice after an unfavorable legal battle alleging you failed to inform them about a potential issue/defense 12 months ago, then I hope your memory is as good as you claim because "uh, I think I remember saying something about estoppel issues in January...maybe?" isn't going to cut it.

If your note taking got better over the semester then go ahead and appeal, but I do want to stress to all soon-to-be lawyers the importance of documenting client interactions.

Thanks for posting this, I'm going to try to remember it once I start dealing with real legal work. I'm normally not a big fan of super detailed notes in class but that'll need to change soon.

# ? Jan 24, 2011 02:55

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

GamingHyena posted:

I have to agree with your professor on this one. She isn't calling you out because of your habits as a student, she's calling you out because of your habits as a (future) attorney. I don't care if you "just remembered things" for your final in underwater basket weaving in undergrad, failing to take notes and failing to go over the notes in a client's file IS irresponsible and unprofessional.

Taking detailed notes of client telephone calls and meetings isn't pointless busywork. You may THINK you have a good memory of what the client said because during the clinic you probably had, at most, a few uncomplicated cases. When you have dozens of clients calling about complicated legal matters that could stretch out for months/years, there's no way you're going to remember every conversation you have. Plus, a contemporaneous record of client interactions is invaluable not only for allowing other attorneys to see how the case is progressing, it will also help you when filling out time sheets. Most importantly, should the client should sue/grieve you in the future, having a contemporaneous record of who said what (and when) could potentially save your law license.

When your client sues you for malpractice after an unfavorable legal battle alleging you failed to inform them about a potential issue/defense 12 months ago, then I hope your memory is as good as you claim because "uh, I think I remember saying something about estoppel issues in January...maybe?" isn't going to cut it.

If your note taking got better over the semester then go ahead and appeal, but I do want to stress to all soon-to-be lawyers the importance of documenting client interactions.

Excellent and true advice.

All I can add is that (particularly as a law student) your issue-spotting abilities are not perfect; the facts that a case may turn upon may not be the same facts that you thought were important enough to remember.

Keeping detailed notes and detailed file minutes sucks, but is absolutely necessary. Better a B- than a lost job or reprimand from the Bar or a ding on your malpractice insurance. I learned via a couple of truly inspired rear end chewings. At the time I'd been in practice about eight years. Suck it up and develop the habit now.

# ? Jan 24, 2011 04:28

Roger_Mudd: Jul 18, 2003; Buglord

Are we winning?

There were 42,096 test takers for the December 2010 administration. This figure is down 16.5% (8,348 test takers) from the December 2009 LSAT administration.
Year-to-date (Jun-Dec), testing volume is 129,414. While this figure is down 10.0% compared to last year, it is the second largest YTD testing volume (second only to last year).

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2011/01/december-lsat-test-takers-drops-165-from-last-year-first-time-test-takers-down-22.html

# ? Jan 24, 2011 04:59

TheMadMilkman: Dec 10, 2007

Lilosh posted:

It's not specifically about legal writing, but, just the other day, I saw this and loved it:

http://www.wimp.com/speaktypography/

It's a condemnation of the hesitant, wishy-washy, and unsure way we speak in recent years.

This is something I've definitely had to deal with. I have a (non-legal) job with the IRS. The only people who like the IRS are people who work for it. I have confrontational conversations on a daily basis with people who disagree with me, and forcing myself to speak clearly and directly has really helped me. I've found that the two most important words you can say are "I disagree." Get those out there and THEN explain why.

# ? Jan 24, 2011 07:13

topheryan: Jul 29, 2004

Colorblind Pilot posted:

Yeah I applied to law school based on that, thinking it was cool if I got into a T14. Apparently that's not the case at all anymore.

So if T14 isn't the cut off anymore, what is? T10?

Should I be worried about taking on the full sticker price in debt for HYS? I'm going to guess no, but this thread would nearly have me believe that there will not be a single employed lawyer three years from now.

# ? Jan 24, 2011 11:37

Abugadu: Jul 12, 2004; 1st Sgt. Matthews and the men have Procured for me a cummerbund from a traveling gypsy, who screeched Victory shall come at a Terrible price. i am Honored.

MEET ME BY DUCKS posted:

So if T14 isn't the cut off anymore, what is? T10?

Should I be worried about taking on the full sticker price in debt for HYS? I'm going to guess no, but this thread would nearly have me believe that there will not be a single employed lawyer three years from now.

HYS, sure. Anything else, hope you're not risk-adverse.

# ? Jan 24, 2011 11:46

Feces Starship: Nov 11, 2008; in the great green room
goodnight moon

MEET ME BY DUCKS posted:

So if T14 isn't the cut off anymore, what is? T10?

Should I be worried about taking on the full sticker price in debt for HYS? I'm going to guess no, but this thread would nearly have me believe that there will not be a single employed lawyer three years from now.

It's really hard to say. I've thought about it a lot however and if I had to synthesize everything I've learned (and heard via anecdote, so take with much salt!) down into a "guide," I would say:

If you get into Yale, Harvard, or Stanford, go if you're pretty sure you want to be a lawyer.

If you get into Columbia or Chicago, go if you're pretty sure you want to be a lawyer AND you get a partial or full scholarship, or if you're absolutely sure you want to be a lawyer (almost nobody does so this probably isn't you).

If you get into NYU, go if you get a scholarship that pays for at least a third of your education AND if you have almost no undergrad debt AND if you're pretty sure you want to be a lawyer, or if you're absolutely sure you want to be a lawyer.

If you get into Michigan, go if you get a whole scholarship OR if you get a very substantial one and you're absolutely sure you want to be a lawyer.

I would not go to Georgetown unless I got a full scholarship.

I don't know anybody who goes to any of the other T-14 schools, so I won't comment on those. I would not go to any of them without substantial scholarships, however.

Furthermore, I personally would not go to ANY non T-14 law school right now.

WHAT IS WRITTEN ABOVE WILL BE VERY CONTROVERSIAL AND IS ONE MAN'S OPINION AND CANNOT BE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT

# ? Jan 24, 2011 13:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 00:47

billion dollar bitch: Jul 20, 2005; To drink and fight.
To fuck all night.

But it is correct...

# ? Jan 24, 2011 14:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista

«‹›1550 »