|
nm posted:You're not T14 My state is a dumpsterfire
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:My state is a dumpsterfire With legal fireworks. Make the best of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:My state is a dumpsterfire
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
I figured this would be the best place to post something of this nature, so here goes. I'm looking to start up a legally-focused wiki, which I'm calling OpenBar for the obvious (to our ilk, at least) double entendre. The thing is, to overhaul the appearance of the wiki and to crib the legally-related articles from Wikipedia for future expansion is quite a lot of work. For instance, I'm thinking the common-law principles (as well as discussion of uniform laws like the UCC or MBCA) should each have a "by state" section where you can list peculiarities to that legal principle for each state, omitting any that don't vary from the norm/tradition. Therefore, as you may have surmised by now, I'm looking for people to help me out with this project. One thing I'm particularly interested in is a hacking of the account creation system so that, like Citizendium, administrators will have to approve new accounts. I figure Citizendium has the right idea in fields like law, where people drat well need to know what they're talking about. The entire idea is for the site to be a usable— if not citation-worthy— reference for practitioners and students. The ultimate goal for the latter group is to be able to flag certain articles as need-to-know for general bar review. I couldn't afford BarBri/PMBR, but I got lucky and a guy gave me his books because he figured he didn't need them anymore. Most people in my situation, though, don't get so lucky and have to muddle through it on their own. I think having all the information freely available and reliable would be good for such people. Then, for the practitioners, they'll be able to look up, say, "medical malpractice" and find statutes of limitations in each state in the article under the general description. If anyone's interested, please contact me. IM info is in my profile. It's more reliable than PMs over the forums because for some reason the notification popup for new PMs doesn't work for me. Edit: I'm using the latest version of Mediawiki for this. ManiacClown fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Feb 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
ManiacClown posted:If anyone's interested, please contact me. IM info is in my profile. It's more reliable than PMs over the forums because for some reason the notification popup for new PMs doesn't work for me. Is this for fun volunteer work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 07:55
|
|
|
nm posted:With legal fireworks. Make the best of it. They aren't legal, we just don't have funding to enforce the laws against them. But Packers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 09:06
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:They aren't legal, we just don't have funding to enforce the laws against them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 09:11
|
|
|
HooKars posted:This is pretty much exactly what I want in life. We'll see how applying for regular jobs while actually employed as a lawyer plays out. I figure at least part of not being considered for non-law jobs while unemployed is the fear the person really wants to be a lawyer and will leave as soon as a lawyer job becomes available. If they're already a lawyer and want out, I wonder if there are the same type of boundaries. I have a lifestyle and workload very similar to Ainsley. I work at the ABA, starting at the beginning of law school as a Customer Service Rep on the phones (which still actually paid somewhat decently), and working my way through two other positions to where I am now. I use my law degree to the extent that in my dealings with our membership it helps a lot to know what exactly they are talking about when helping them develop policy and that sort of thing, but my law degree was not required for my job. It is an extremely laid back environment, and taking work home with you is almost entirely at your own discretion. I do it, but only because I almost feel guilty about what they are paying me versus how much work I feel like I do. We have pretty drat good benefits, decent if not amazing salaries, and in many of our positions you get to travel 3 or 4 times a year to some pretty good spots. I just got back from a week long meeting in Palm Beach, FL for example. Yeah we were working but we had a lot of free time to have fun also. For a while after I figured out how the law school scam kind of hosed me and I'd never actually be getting one of those big firm jobs I thought were guaranteed just by attending law school, I was a bit bitter and forlorn. And while I still think I was a dumbass for going to law school without doing even a shred of research, this job combined with IBR have made sure it wasn't a life-destroying adventure in idiocy. I can honestly say that I'm happier now with my employment situation than I have ever been, and now that I know how much work is expected out of associates I know I could never have done that job for very long anyway. The reason for this whole marketing spiel is that I want to say YOU SHOULD APPLY TO THE ABA! You can feel free to mention your law degree and dissatisfaction with practice during the interview process, you don't have to hide anything as there is a ton of refugees from that lifestyle in the ranks. Check it out if you wanna: http://www2.americanbar.org/hr/default.aspx, also State and Local bar associations may have administrative openings and would not look down on or get the wrong impression about your JD. Chances are the person you'd be interviewing with would have one too. Defleshed fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Feb 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
HooKars posted:Is this for fun volunteer work? I suppose that depends on your definition of "fun" but yeah, it's not like I can pay anything. After all, I'm in the same boat as everybody else here. I'm working in a drat warehouse with a JD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
ManiacClown posted:I suppose that depends on your definition of "fun" but yeah, it's not like I can pay anything. After all, I'm in the same boat as everybody else here. I'm working in a drat warehouse with a JD. So you have decided to create an internet law encyclopedia to give potential clients answers to legal questions without having to hire a lawyer? And you would like us practitioners to help you further deflate the need for our services? Yeah, I'm in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:So I don't know if this is the right thread for this, but people here know about student loans and taxes and we're all bros so what the hell I'm confused by this situation. The DOE paid your interest when you consolidated your loans? But yeah, if you didn't pay it, it's unlikely that you can take the interest deduction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:So you have decided to create an internet law encyclopedia to give potential clients answers to legal questions without having to hire a lawyer? And you would like us practitioners to help you further deflate the need for our services? Yeah, I'm in. Not clients. I figure on it getting technical enough that lay people wouldn't understand it. Also, the initial goal is to be able to compete with the bar review racket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
When you consolidate, the new place pays off everything to the old holder of your loan, including interest that's been accumulating. That interest is capitalized into the new consolidation loan, so I think that counts as interest paid. Otherwise there'd be interest you end up paying but had no way to deduct. I don't actually know what I'm talking about, but that makes sense to me, and they put that in the 1098-E so deduct that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 17:18
|
|
|
Oh hey, just reading the New Yorker, hrm, article from Malcolm Gladwell, bet it will be a bunch of pop sociology bullshit that makes thrillingly contrarian conclusions, what's the subject, oh I see, college rankings, yes, I'm sure this will go we-  hrrrrrrrrrruuughhhbllaaaaaaajg 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
Faculty publishing in law reviews no one even pretends to read: half as important as the LSAT
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
HooKars posted:I have a pretty intense hatred/fear of public speaking that I'd have to get over - which also prevents me from applying to a lot of the more easy going litigation attorney jobs -- though having that kind of vacation time would be a big incentive to get over it. I don't like public speaking either, but this is somehow different. Maybe because I'm in complete control of everything. But, like I said, it isn't for everyone. I just thought I'd throw it out there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
prussian advisor posted:Quepasa18 when you have the time and/or the inclination you should drop by #lawgoons so I can ask you some questions about this. Also hope your teaching job is continuing to go really well Sure, I'll try to get on there sometime this week. You can also pm me if you have that capability. It's going good, but with our governor out to get state workers, things could change dramatically in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
He will also propose that interest on federal loans for graduate students accrue during school; currently, the interest tab doesn't start running until after graduation. The changes would save $9 billion in the first year, Lew told CNN's Candy Crowley That's not the change I voted for!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:He will also propose that interest on federal loans for graduate students accrue during school; currently, the interest tab doesn't start running until after graduation. well for unsubsidized stafford and grad plus the interest currently accrues during school. and hey I am so much debt anyways who the gently caress cares I am actually trying to run up more debt so I can say I have as much debt as the country of Luxembourg.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
Kase Im Licht posted:When you consolidate, the new place pays off everything to the old holder of your loan, including interest that's been accumulating. That interest is capitalized into the new consolidation loan, so I think that counts as interest paid. Otherwise there'd be interest you end up paying but had no way to deduct. Actually, I think I'd be able to deduct it twice: once now, from the consolidation loan, and then again over the next 25 years as I pay off the interest on the consolidation loan. Looking at the IRS publication it looks like I actually can deduct it. Interest paid by other parties can be deducted, it says. It has the example of someone whose grandma pays part of his interest and says he can deduct it. The DOE is basically America's grandma, right? Feels kinda wrong to me to be honest, but whatever. Again, doesn't matter anyway, I didn't make enough in 2010 to owe any taxes anyway, but I was curious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
nm posted:Your quarterback is from Chico. Your quarterback is our worn out sloppy seconds
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
~suitchat~ I have an articling interview next week with an ancient solo litigator (mostly criminal defence, but he's argued a number of legendary cases of all sorts over the last 40 years). I'm thinking of wearing: * charcoal suit * white shirt * this tie * these cufflinks. Too nerdy? Tie too colourful? I am well aware that my choice of dress ultimately makes next to 0 difference in terms of hiring
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
Tie's probably alright, don't know about those cufflinks though. e: If you have a solid red/maroon tie that would probably be better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
I do have a solid red tie but white shirt/red tie is just so boring at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
If the dude likes star trek, those cuff links would be great. Like if I were an interviewer and I saw someone wearing those things I'd be all "forget why do you want to work here, let's just talk about DS9"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Adar posted:Faculty publishing in law reviews no one even pretends to read: half as important as the LSAT What were they thinking? Everyone knows square footage of the library is a way better metric.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:If the dude likes star trek, those cuff links would be great. Like if I were an interviewer and I saw someone wearing those things I'd be all "forget why do you want to work here, let's just talk about DS9" ...and how it was a complete rip-off of B5? Live for the One, die for the One.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
One of my best friends wore those cuff links to his wedding. No joke. He even liked Voyager.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.htmlquote:WASHINGTON — The anniversary will probably be observed in silence. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Man gently caress journal board slating applications. And professors who are not timely with their article submissions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
Petey posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html I don't get why people (mostly liberals) criticize him for this. Cases before the SCOTUS are thoroughly, thoroughly briefed; not to mention, there is an entire record below. I fail to see why the Court even needs oral argument, except for tradition's sake. I know they ask questions and stuff, but it all seems like theater to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Petey posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html I wish there were a a place to see when, exactly, he's spoken (and to whom) and how the cases were decided. A friend of mine and I have had a running joke for some time that if Thomas ever asks someone a question, they should just pack up because they've already lost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
entris posted:I don't get why people (mostly liberals) criticize him for this. Cases before the SCOTUS are thoroughly, thoroughly briefed; not to mention, there is an entire record below. I fail to see why the Court even needs oral argument, except for tradition's sake. I know they ask questions and stuff, but it all seems like theater to me. For starters, because Thomas often decides cases on issues not raised by either side. Plus he sleeps through oral arguments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
I can't say I really care if Thomas never speaks. Like others have pointed out, SCOTUS cases are so thoroughly briefed, dissected, and bombarded with amici that there is really very little that the oral argument is going to do to illuminate matters or sway opinions. Not to mention that the oral arguments are strictly limited to an hour, which is completely arbitrary and obviously not enough time for any and all issues to be addressed. They really don't serve any good purpose beyond pointless pomp and if Thomas wants to be an anti-Burger and distance himself from it, then that's fine with me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
Linguica posted:I can't say I really care if Thomas never speaks. Like others have pointed out, SCOTUS cases are so thoroughly briefed, dissected, and bombarded with amici that there is really very little that the oral argument is going to do to illuminate matters or sway opinions. Not to mention that the oral arguments are strictly limited to an hour, which is completely arbitrary and obviously not enough time for any and all issues to be addressed. They really don't serve any good purpose beyond pointless pomp and if Thomas wants to be an anti-Burger and distance himself from it, then that's fine with me. As the article says though, if you make a habit out of writing opinions based on issues advanced by neither side, you can't claim that as a justification: quote:He asked no questions, for instance, in a 2007 case about high school students’ First Amendment rights. In a concurrence, he said he would have overturned the key precedent to rule that “the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
entris posted:I don't get why people (mostly liberals) criticize him for this. I'd imagine a lot of people don't particularly mind his courtroom behavior so much as they dislike his politics and see an easy angle of attack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
Linguica posted:I can't say I really care if Thomas never speaks. Like others have pointed out, SCOTUS cases are so thoroughly briefed, dissected, and bombarded with amici that there is really very little that the oral argument is going to do to illuminate matters or sway opinions. Not to mention that the oral arguments are strictly limited to an hour, which is completely arbitrary and obviously not enough time for any and all issues to be addressed. They really don't serve any good purpose beyond pointless pomp and if Thomas wants to be an anti-Burger and distance himself from it, then that's fine with me. I don't like the idea of a dude with a lifetime job who expends almost zero effort. At least pretend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
atlas of bugs posted:I don't like the idea of a dude with a lifetime job who expends almost zero effort. Hats of for the Republican's turning "the black seat" into a lazy, moronic, and mute "seat".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:As the article says though, if you make a habit out of writing opinions based on issues advanced by neither side, you can't claim that as a justification As for writing an opinion based on an issue that neither side raised, I point you to a case you might have heard of once or twice, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Railroad_Co._v._Tompkins, or perhaps if you like, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio atlas of bugs posted:I don't like the idea of a dude with a lifetime job who expends almost zero effort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
So I've heard there are organizations out there (or maybe just one) that pretends to be the SCOTUS to prepare lawyers for oral arguments. They hire people to pretend to be the judges, to impersonate them right down to their personalities. Do they hire thomases?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 01:41
|
|