|
Solomon Grundy posted:I'm too old to learn a new technology. "Chat clients" frighten me the way that TV remotes frighten you grandmother. Besides, I have been warned by Dateline not to chat on the internet.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:07 |
|
|
nm posted:IRC is literally older than the world wide web (1988 v. 1991)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
Linguica posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2rGTXHvPCQ I love it when shows get trolled by their own consultants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Look, take me back to the days of the 2400 baud modem calling into the local BBS to download the Anarchist's Cookbook as a .txt file. I am comfortable with that. All these mibbits and gribbits and whatnot are too taxing for this old man to take, what with text messaging and low-riding pants and all that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Look, take me back to the days of the 2400 baud modem calling into the local BBS to download the Anarchist's Cookbook as a .txt file. I am comfortable with that. All these mibbits and gribbits and whatnot are too taxing for this old man to take, what with text messaging and low-riding pants and all that. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Linguica posted:I remember wishing I could buy a big industrial-sized crate of strike-anywhere matches so I could make the tennis ball bomb As entertaining and creative as some of the stuff was, actual weapons are so much more effective. I'm going to put together the revised edition of the book. Chapter I. Get a decent paying job somewhere in the southern or midwestern unites states. Chapter II. Buy a bunch of weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:As entertaining and creative as some of the stuff was, actual weapons are so much more effective. I'm going to put together the revised edition of the book. That's more The Anarchist's Mailbox Flyer rather than The Anarchist's Cookbook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
I got a summer offer from a firm, and the person seemed surprised I did not accept it on the spot, on the phone. I was pretty taken aback.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
How large is the stipend you get from Northwestern for their "Bridge to Practice"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
Hmmm... The firm I mentioned a few pages back (offering profit share to me, a 1-year PQE in London) has asked me to, essentially, draft my own payment terms. The guy running it seems to dislike salaries as they don't "incentivise" business development. I said either he paid me a salary or I walked. We agreed majority of my remuneration as salary, some as a percentage of the firm's profits. That way I'll never not make rent due to a bad month. Also, they'll toss in a company car because he doesn't want his clients seeing their lawyers "next to them on the Tube". Still got a salary to negotiate, though...and despite flat-out saying "the going rate" every time he asked the question, it's either name a salary or lose the deal. Any tips, Lawgoons? My current plan is to name the going rate (which I can pull up from a quick survey, as I researched this well in advance) in the full knowledge that he'll knock me down, and the car and other perks I've got him to throw in will fill the gap. I'm checking the firm's last filed accounts to see what the percentage would have been in cash terms last year. I'm happy to work a bit under the going rate as this is a small boutique firm, but I'm clearly being set up to lowball myself and I don't want to lose out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
I have no idea why you wouldn't want an equity piece. You said "a portion of the firm's profits" and not what you particularly originated. If you got to look at the books, then you should be able to answer this yourself. Just be aware this is literally unheard levels of generosity in American law firms. One boutique firm I interviewed with offered associates a bonus based on business they brought in, but besides that it was all salary. I realize I just typed the same sentence out like 4 times, but still.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
1. Doc review market in DC is going nuts. Unemployed? Underemployed? Maybe get in contact with some staffing agencies here. You have to have a DC bar license for a lot of projects, but there should still be plenty where you don't (may need to have your app in with the DC bar ~$700). Probably isn't much evidence of a wider recovery in the legal/doc review market, just AT&T/T-Mobile gearing up to fight the DOJ and sucking up a ton of the available attorneys. 2. I may have escape the legal profession. Currently negotiating salary but if something reasonable comes back, I will soon be....a probation officer? Weird career path, but anything is better than the clicking. The loving clicking. So kids, remember, that law degree and 4 years of work experience CAN get you a GS-7 position!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
Kase Im Licht posted:2. I may have escape the legal profession. Currently negotiating salary but if something reasonable comes back, I will soon be....a probation officer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
Courtesy of the PA disciplinary board ( The most interesting disciplinary case this month is the decision of the Review Board of the Illinois[1] Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission in the matter of Kelly Maureen Murawski. Ms. Murawski’s problems arose out of her decision to represent a married man by the name of Matthew, with whom she had formerly had an intimate relationship. It seems Matthew also had an affair with one Chablis, whom he met on match.com. His profile failed to disclose that he was married to Sally. A year later, Chablis found out Matthew was married, threatened to tell his wife, and began a pattern of appearing at and telephoning his home. On a recommendation from a police officer that he obtain a protective order, Matthew contacted Respondent, who agreed to represent him “as a friend.”[2] Matthew neglected to advise Respondent of the precise nature of his relationship with Chablis. Respondent filed papers for an ex parte protection order, which was scheduled for a hearing. Respondent appeared at the hearing with Matthew, at which Chablis appeared with 59 pages of emails and texts from Matthew professing his love and twice proposing marriage. Respondent asked to see the documentation and sat down on a bench with Chablis to read it.[3] The sight of his former inamoratas sharing notes on their experience was too much for Matthew, who became enraged and discharged Respondent as his attorney. She went back into the courtroom and withdrew as his attorney, and after an ensuing scuffle over possession of the documentation, Respondent filed a battery charge against Matthew, who was arrested and jailed. The protection order was dismissed. Later that day, Respondent telephoned Sally and informed her that Matthew was in jail, and also of his relationships with Respondent and Chablis.[4] Ostensibly, this was to arrange a time for service of a protective order. It turned out Sally already knew about Chablis. Nonetheless much unpleasantness ensued, and Matthew and Sally divorced. Despite the bad judgment evident in Respondent’s handling of the matter, all disciplinary charges were dismissed. Murawski was found not to have violated a requirement of Rule 1.16(d) to deliver documents to her client upon withdrawal because Matthew never had a right to the documents. The documents remained Chablis’s property unless introduced in the proceeding, which never happened. She did not betray a client’s confidence in violation of Rule 1.6(a) by her call to Sally because Sally already knew about Chablis. She did not use information adverse to a former client in violation of Rule 1.9(a)(2) because Matthew’s relationship with Chablis was known not only to Sally, but also to those in the public courtroom. Although Ms. Murawski was not disciplined, a few lessons appear from the case: Representing a married former paramour “as a friend” is probably a bad idea. Representing a married former paramour in a domestic dispute with another former paramour “as a friend” is definitely a bad idea. Representing a married former paramour with anger issues in a domestic dispute with another former paramour named Chablis he met while trolling match.com as a single man is absolutely a bad idea. Not asking your married former paramour with anger issues why he wants you to file a protective order against a woman named Chablis is a very bad idea. Calling your married former paramour’s wife to explain that her husband is in jail and that you are filing a protective order against him because of his behavior in a protective order case you filed against another former paramour named Chablis he met on match.com cannot possibly have seemed like a good idea at the time. Loxbourne, I suspect the number he's thinking of (however it's phrased) is going to work out to about 33% of whatever they'd like you to be billing annually. With the added bonus that they don't have to pay you if they can't find you work. And unlike a used car salesman, you don't know (unless you know a lot more about this firm than you're saying) whether you're going to have a car to sell from week to week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
Chablis is a name that should not be a name. Chablis' mother should be ashamed. Like my friend Dirigible and his mother.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Chablis is a name that should not be a name. Chablis' mother should be ashamed. Hey, she could have been called Old English. This is a classy dame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Just be aware this is literally unheard levels of generosity in American law firms. Yes, this is why I'm suspicious. I know the general "300% of salary" principle, and I know what 1-year PQEs get in London, and I can't help but remember the old adage about things that are too good to be true. I already plan to get someone independent to check out the contract documents etc. That said...I'll stop bitching and go close the deal. Thanks for the advice, and I'll keep the thread posted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 13:05
|
|
|
nm posted:This position may be more evil than a DA. Also, I never thought DAs were evil. Also, this is a jurisdiction where the job has been described by people as "social worker with a badge."
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 13:27
|
|
|
Saga posted:Although Ms. Murawski was not disciplined, a few lessons appear from the case: Was this actually in the text of the decision? Because man, that is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 14:16
|
|
|
entris posted:Was this actually in the text of the decision? Because man, that is hilarious. This is what I want to know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 15:08
|
|
|
Kase Im Licht posted:Why? If you define "social worker" as "person who argues for a longer prison sentence for his charges" then yeah I guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:This is what I want to know. Sorry, per my post, that was a summary offered by the PA disciplinary board. Which they may have stolen from someone else. We must have a law student here with time on their hands and a free Westlaw account? Or even just google I guess, assuming Illinois publishes this stuff. e: Loxbourne, my point (in case you didn't get it, but I'm probably just misreading) was this doesn't sound like generosity, it sounds like he wants to give you up to a "normal" salary with the option of paying you little or nothing if they don't have any work lying around for you. If you have employment with Biglaw.co.uk and are past your probationary period (which I assume you are from 1 PQE), do you REALLY hate it enough to lose the job security in this economy? I mean, to become a rent boy to a Tory MP or a surfing instructor or climb mountains or something I can understand, but this doesn't sound like any of the above. Saga fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 16:45
|
|
|
entris posted:Was this actually in the text of the decision? Because man, that is hilarious. Unfortunately, no. Go here and put in her last name and you'll get the hearing board and the review board's opinions. POs around here work for DOC so they understand that the more money DOC spends on putting probationers in prison means less money and less job security for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:If you define "social worker" as "person who argues for a longer prison sentence for his charges" then yeah I guess Yeah. Though I CA, admittedly that's changing as probation officers are county employee and starting tomorrow the county will be responsible for incarcerating most felons. Sorry, I can't see a job where I narc on a guy who is doing fine (has a job, no new arrests) but smokes a J on the weekend so he pisses dirty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
My former landlord attempted to withhold my security deposit (and charge me $53 more dollars) for a bullshit "REPLACE CARPET" charge I lawyered up a letter, cited the relevant MCL, and demanded my money back; one week later, I have a check for my security deposit stamped SETTLEMENT IN FULL  being a lawyer ownsP.S. future annarborites, don't rent from Group 5
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
also Hidden your office is nicer than mine 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
Our Dean of Student Affairs sent us this http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?l=100349428931 quote:Omissions keep grads from bar
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:also Hidden your office is nicer than mine There's a large anime convention every year in Atlanta at the end of September. 10-15k Gokus and Sailor Moons running all over the place. http://www.awa-con.com/ I convinced my fellow first years that we should have lunch at the place hosting it today. Now I have pictures of them posing with Power Rangers and Naruto characters. What should I do with them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:P.S. future annarborites, don't rent from Group 5
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:At least you're not in the South? Save them for 10 years then post them in the restroom over the urinal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
Well Im excited, taking on my first real clients against the Accident Compensation Corporation down under here in New Zealand. So hungry for experience. Been working as a clerk part time for this legitimately cool small firm fighting for the little guy. The principal solicitor has the nickname "Satan" around ACC offices I hear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
Saga posted:e: Loxbourne, my point (in case you didn't get it, but I'm probably just misreading) was this doesn't sound like generosity, it sounds like he wants to give you up to a "normal" salary with the option of paying you little or nothing if they don't have any work lying around for you. Yes, hence my insistence on them paying a flat salary PLUS equity. Equity is nice and I don't mind a salary drop to include some, but my rent is non-negotiable. This is a good deal WITH a good base salary; a terrible deal without one. I would hate to walk away from this, as I've been unemployed for a few months now (wasn't kept on after qualifying, alas), so I'll fight to keep it and drop my offer if I have to. But at the end of the day a job that doesn't pay enough for me to survive on (or makes financial survival dependant on someone else's mood swings) would be worse than no job at all. I think there's also an element of these guys lowballing me at the start and expecting me to fight. So far everything I've asked for and defended against a few minutes of counterattacks, I've got. It's "just" the base salary left to sort out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 14:16
|
|
|
I wound up taking the bigger firm's offer. I guess that there are jobs but I'll probably die alone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me about studying tax law? I'm getting a bs in accounting and while I don't really need to be worrying about law school just yet as I have the CPA cert. to worry about first I'm just curious as to what it's like?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
Lamdo posted:Can anyone tell me about studying tax law? I'm getting a bs in accounting and while I don't really need to be worrying about law school just yet as I have the CPA cert. to worry about first I'm just curious as to what it's like? Tax is a niche thing that weird people tend to like. To be good at tax law you really need to live and breathe it, so generally if you want to do tax law it's the only thing you're going to do and you better love it because of that. Lots of goons like it. I really liked it, and I'm a crim guy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Lots of people on facebook don't like that I'm posting "Congratulations on taking the easiest test you'll take for the rest of your life" on their LSAT statuses today. Sigh. Those poor bastards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
1. Totally shut out with clerkships. 2. Two forthcoming publications this cycle. 3. Nothing to do as a 3L. It is glorious. I work out and play vids and watch football. If you play League of Legends add me (Sigmachiev2).
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
Holland Oats posted:I wound up taking the bigger firm's offer. I guess that there are jobs but I'll probably die alone. Why? It didn't sound like it was paying that much less and it seemed like you liked the other place more? Sometimes I think the real reason people are unhappy is that they all get caught up in the prestige war. Like all those people who were going to do public interest stuff, had opportunities to do public interest stuff, and still got caught up interviewing with big law firms and just promising themselves they would switch over "in a few years."
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:Tax is a niche thing that weird people tend to like. To be good at tax law you really need to live and breathe it, so generally if you want to do tax law it's the only thing you're going to do and you better love it because of that. I am taking it now and I am also a crim guy and I like it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:07 |
|
|
Lamdo posted:Can anyone tell me about studying tax law? I'm getting a bs in accounting and while I don't really need to be worrying about law school just yet as I have the CPA cert. to worry about first I'm just curious as to what it's like? I ended up liking tax law a lot, and I was an English major, so take that as you will. It's really not much at all about numbers. It's more like logic games with the complex and intertwined workings of the tax code. It's a lot of fun when a tax class clicks into place. As for studying it, it's just a handful of classes in law school, which are optional just like most classes after your first year (depending on school). Everything you see in this thread and in the OP applies. You don't need to specialize in an area or topic in law school (although some schools offer "certificates" to show you focused a bit, they are definitely not required). There are tax LLMs (arguably the only LLM potentially worth the money), but I don't know much about them other than the fact that only a few schools are worth considering. I think at least one person in this thread as a tax LLM, so they could tell you more about that. However, to get to that point, you still need to get through law school itself which, if you've spent even a little time in this thread, you should know is generally a Bad Idea. I can't tell you too much about the tax law market as I've just graduated and was lucky enough to get a job offer from my 2L summer internship, but I believe it's just as bad as other areas of law. I do know that the IRS is generally swamped with applications these days, just like most federal agencies, so don't go in with an assumption that you use the government as a "fallback" (somehow people actually think this).
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 01:45
|
|
