|
Petey posted:Do you have a link for this? Sure, here it is: http://www.uillinois.edu/our/news/2011/Law/index.cfm
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Ganon posted:Seems like the one career thread missing from this site is dentistry. There's more special forces here than dentists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Be a loving dentist. Even idiots can do it, the hours are a joke, the pay is insane, and the only drawback is you have to look in people's disgusting mouths all day. pretty sure it's the technicians/hygienists who have to look in mouths all day. the dentist is the one who comes out to talk to you for five minutes about golf, then goes back to his office to look at all the oversized novelty checks he got from insurers that day
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
The dentist doesn't have to do the boring stuff like teeth cleanings and x-rays, but he does get to do the fun stuff like re-breaking your jaw because it healed the wrong way by punching you in the mouth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
Anyone have a decent Corporate Tax outline they'd be willing to share? I'm usually pretty self-sufficient, but these Section 355 corporate divisions are killing me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
Blakkout posted:Anyone have a decent Corporate Tax outline they'd be willing to share? I'm usually pretty self-sufficient, but these Section 355 corporate divisions are killing me. Use the BNA Tax Management Portfolios to learn tax. Your library/librarian can help you find where your school keeps them, and they are available online as well for free at most schools.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
Hey nm I got my first PD to cuss at me because I told his/her client that they were a savage malicious child beater. Question: if a DA told your savage malicious child beater client that they were a "savage malicious child beater" on the record, what would you do? BigHead fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Hey nm I got my first PD to cuss at me because I told his/her client that they were a savage malicious child beater. Be taken aback that the DA gave a poo poo whether or not my client actually did the crime
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ha, also that. BigHead posted:Hey nm I got my first PD to cuss at me because I told his/her client that they were a savage malicious child beater. You shouldn't be talking to represented defendants. There's a big difference between saying he savagely and maliciously beat a child and calling him a savage malicious child beater. I think it gets a little too close to indicating malicious prosecution for comfort the way you said it. nm fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
nm posted:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, to be fair, we were talking Alaska Rule of Evidence 404(b)(4). I have never gotten more emotionally invested than today. It was a really, really sad day for me, and I was just told about my victims' really really sad days. I didn't have to live through those days 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Well, to be fair, we were talking Alaska Rule of Evidence 404(b)(4). I have never gotten more emotionally invested than today. It was a really, really sad day for me, and I was just told about my victims' really really sad days. If your case is weak, you shouldn't be allowed to bolster it with other poo poo. This stuff is always old, witnesses are missing and are very difficult to refute because of that. Particularly when if your like the DAs I've work with you drop it 2 days before trial. I've always gotten this type of evidence excluded though 
nm fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Hey nm I got my first PD to cuss at me because I told his/her client that they were a savage malicious child beater. BigHead posted:Well, to be fair, we were talking Alaska Rule of Evidence 404(b)(4). I have never gotten more emotionally invested than today. It was a really, really sad day for me, and I was just told about my victims' really really sad days. Holy crap! You have a rule that is more persecution oriented than Oklahoma's? Here you've got to give notice of 404b BS 10 days in advance of trial, (but your motion for continuance will be granted) and the only statutory 'to hell with the idea of being tried for the crime you're accused of' exception we've got is 413/414, (like your 404(b)(2)[except sex crimes only] and (3)) and they've only been added within the last 5 years. Answer: Object, be overruled as 'fair comment on the evidence.' A lot of the people you prosecute also have really really sad days. If you hold on too tight to your humanity, you'll end up a PD too. bwahahahaha!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
nm posted:Prior act evidence is loving evil, especially as yours and CAs allows the use of never charged and dismissed actions. I understand that DV is a cycle, but crazy people also call the police too much and allege poo poo that never happened. I have a series of pictures from prior instances that clearly demarcate the curves, lines, nooks and crannies of at least three different belt buckles. On a 12 year old's arm. In bruise form.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 06:21
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Take (or teach) a spinning class with the undergrads! Undergrad babes who don't yet know the negative value of a law degree will swoon. And spinning class babes have the best butts, according to science. Hottest girl in my class taught spinning at 6 a.m. every day before school. First week or so her class was very empty. Then more and more people started showing up and a month in her class was packed. With guys. She didn't understand why there were so many dudes in her spinning class but she thought it was really cool to see their interest in traditionally female-dominated group exercise. My buddy broke it to her that if they removed the mirrored wall behind the instructor in the spinning room at her gym, attendance would probably drop by half immediately. This is the same girl who landed a biglaw job despite average grades. Being ridiculously hot really, really helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
BigHead posted:I have a series of pictures from prior instances that clearly demarcate the curves, lines, nooks and crannies of at least three different belt buckles. I'm seriously not being a smart rear end, and I certainly don't condone the behavior but that is strictly misdemeanor level poo poo here. It gets much, much worse. For example, burns (which can still be misdos). You have to be able to desensitize yourself to this or you're going to be a broken person. nm fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 06:33
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I'm pushing a client to settle a case set for trial at the end of the month so I can play Skyrim instead of drafting a pretrial memo and motions in limine I was crossing my fingers for a discovery deadline extension for precisely the same reason. Then we didn't get it and the fuckers moved to disqualify us as well. My dreams of very little time to play Skyim changing into a moderate amount of time to play Skyrim changed abruptly to no time to play Skyrim. Assholes. Need to introduce legislation. "For purposes of computation of time under this code, major video game release dates and the week thereafter shall be treated as court holidays."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 06:38
|
|
|
nm posted:Dude, if this is what makes you cry, you may not be cut out for criminal work. I know you're not a smart rear end  And I am in fact new, therefore I am not yet desensitized. But, drat. It's hard to, you know, be objective (even though I am objective). 'Cause I wanna whip his face with the same cat o' nine tails that he whipped his kids' face with. But I need to be so... very... calm....
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
BigHead posted:And I am in fact new, therefore I am not yet desensitized. But, drat. It's hard to, you know, be objective (even though I am objective). 'Cause I wanna whip his face with the same cat o' nine tails that he whipped his kids' face with. But I need to be so... very... calm.... You get the one sob story that the cops were called about. I get decades worth of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
BigHead posted:I know you're not a smart rear end Working on the appellate report on a felony child abuse conviction right now where the 4 year-old is covered with hyperpigmented belt marks that are likely permanent, was made to stand during all meals, had to sleep on the floor, and ended up in the hospital for 30 days in a coma with a brain bleed and now she puts her clothes on backwards and can't tell the difference between red and blue. Sometimes I'm glad for the level of remoteness a cold record provides. Also, I would say prior acts is the number one appellate issue for criminal convictions, or at least running a tie with ineffective assistance of counsel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
Long shot here and this is a super specific question I'm not sure anyone can answer, but does anyone know of any articles which break down William Swadling's articles on resulting trusts into something digestible? I've looked around but haven't happened on anything too helpful. We've been given an exam question which is 'Do resulting trusts respond to the trustee's unjust enrichment?' I've tried reading Swadling's articles 3 or 4 times now and I'm still not getting them. Even though I don't like the doctrinal mapping exercise that Peter Birks undertakes his arguments are at least well presented and easy to follow. Swadling is a loving nightmare; he talks in discrete points and doesn't connect them explicitly so while no one thing he says is hard to understand I am having a massive headache reconciling everything he says into a logical argument. At this stage I am considering changing to the question on whether a right to specific performance to transfer property is a property right itself because I find Swadling so impermeable. After more than five years including being accepted into the honours course I think this is the first time law school has actually made me feel stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Working on the appellate report on a felony child abuse conviction right now where the 4 year-old is covered with hyperpigmented belt marks that are likely permanent, was made to stand during all meals, had to sleep on the floor, and ended up in the hospital for 30 days in a coma with a brain bleed and now she puts her clothes on backwards and can't tell the difference between red and blue. J Miracle posted:Sometimes I'm glad for the level of remoteness a cold record provides. I have some questions about your court's process, if you're comfortable answering them. Is the appellate report on the facts, the legal issues, or both? Is it based on the record of trial, or is it based on the parties' briefs? Is it done by law student clerks or attorney clerks, or created by one, and reviewed by the other? Is it distributed to one's judge, or all the judges? Is it done before or after the court gets the parties' briefs? Is it just informational, or will it eventually end up being the foundation for the Court's opinion? [/three year old question barrage]
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:Long shot here and this is a super specific question I'm not sure anyone can answer, but does anyone know of any articles which break down William Swadling's articles on resulting trusts into something digestible? I've looked around but haven't happened on anything too helpful. What the gently caress is this poo poo, are you even in the right thread? "Doctrinal mapping exercise"? What the gently caress? Also, is this really an exam question for an exam you are taking now, or is this an exam question from an old exam that you are practicing with? (Here is a hint: the correct answer is the latter.) 'Do resulting trusts respond to the trustee's unjust enrichment?' is your question? I practice T&E and I'm not clear on what is being asked. Give more detail please. quote:After more than five years including being accepted into the honours course I think this is the first time law school has actually made me feel stupid. You aren't in an American law school, are you? I am so very confused.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
srsly posted:Being ridiculously hot really, really helps. We had a girl who fancied herself Elle Woods. Blonde hair. Tan. Huge rack. Wore tons of pink. We called her Barbie. Barbie's grades were so bad at the end of 1L year her parents wanted her to drop out and become a waitress. Barbie works at a very big firm now, thanks to lotterying in at 2L OCI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:We had a girl who fancied herself Elle Woods. Blonde hair. Tan. Huge rack. Wore tons of pink. We called her Barbie. ...I know this isn't IRC but...pics?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
Trial got continued heh, fuckin dragons gonna get rocked this weekend...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:...I know this isn't IRC but...pics? Yeah, this story means nothing without photos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Is the appellate report on the facts, the legal issues, or both? Is it based on the record of trial, or is it based on the parties' briefs? Is it done by law student clerks or attorney clerks, or created by one, and reviewed by the other? Is it distributed to one's judge, or all the judges? Is it done before or after the court gets the parties' briefs? Is it just informational, or will it eventually end up being the foundation for the Court's opinion? Welp, I have no idea how general this is, but in Michigan I work for a Pre-Hearing division which is also called the Research Division. We get the lower court record and party's briefs (VERY rarely only the appellant's brief if the appellee is late but has gotten an extension), then do a report that contains a neutral SOF with cites to the transcripts or w/e. We then summarize the appellant's issues presented and appellee's response, then research the applicable law, standard of review, etc and apply it to the facts. We conclude with a recommendation to the court and, for unpublished opinions, a proposed opinion. Sometimes we propose oral argument questions if they come up. These reports go to the clerks of the three-judge appellate panel assigned to the case. The clerks make their own report or do whatever they do. Eventually the case goes up on case call and they hear oral args and issue an opinion, all that jazz. The reports are done by attorneys but we also have externs that do work under supervision from attorneys. Really complex cases are handled by senior research attorneys who have usually worked for the court for 5+ years. My job currently renewed annually with a cap at 3 years unless you hire in as a staff attorney. The reports are informational for the judge and/or the judge's clerk. There's a lot of redundancy built into the system, like for example sometimes when I go to do my report the Commissioner's office has already done a report for an issue or two, especially if there was a motion in the appellate court. Usually the proposed opinion is rewritten to the writing judge's style but sometimes I see chunks of stuff I wrote. So far I've never had a panel do the exact opposite of what I recommended, but the reasoning isn't always the same. I like the job honestly, you learn a lot about different areas of the law, you sharpen up your writing, looks great on a resume, and honestly its fairly low stress--I pretty much work a 40-hour week. Of course the salary isn't spectacular but its got benefits and its still pretty good for this area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Pathetic, yes.  Ganon posted:Seems like the one career thread missing from this site is dentistry. There's more special forces here than dentists. My SO's sister is a periodontist and she's like a modern day alchemist, transmuting lovely gums to straight cash, homey
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
entris posted:You aren't in an American law school, are you? Generally when somebody says "honour" and says things that don't make any sense you can assume they go to a non-American law school.* *Except Plato MoFauxHawk fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Nov 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
entris posted:What the gently caress is this poo poo, are you even in the right thread? "Doctrinal mapping exercise"? What the gently caress? Also, is this really an exam question for an exam you are taking now, or is this an exam question from an old exam that you are practicing with? (Here is a hint: the correct answer is the latter.) Yeah, it's an Australian law school. I didn't think there'd be anyone with any helpful knowledge since the unjust enrichment debate is mainly an Australian/UK thing from what I've seen and there's not a lot of publications from American academics but I thought I'd have one last shot in the law thread before I threw up my hands and changed questions, given the investment I've already put into this one. It's a doctrinal mapping exercise because Birks believes all property rights arise in response to four events - consent, wrongs, unjust enrichment and 'other'. This ends up with him attempting to apply unjust enrichment doctrines to causes of action which here-to-fore have been treated as their own equitable doctrines. Swadling prefers that resulting trusts arise on presumptions, but the way he sets it out is incredibly confusing. And we got the exam questions beforehand because this unit has a ridiculous amount of readings and it would be nearly impossible to give a good answer without them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
They need to start making CMR guides to the actual practice of law so I know what the hell I'm supposed to do now, because "talk to a bunch of lawyers to figure it out" is just awful. Would pay thousands more dollars for this option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:They need to start making CMR guides to the actual practice of law so I know what the hell I'm supposed to do now, because "talk to a bunch of lawyers to figure it out" is just awful. Would pay thousands more dollars for this option. Put me on retainer for consults.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
We got an associate attorney recently. This guy has both a JD and an MBA, and from what I can tell worked for the DA, then private practice, then the DA again, then the County prosecuting DNNs and now he's in criminal defense in addition to working for our family law partner. All this over the course of about 7 years. Evidently I'm the only one that wonders why he can't stay in one loving place. Today he got ooked out because one of our clients is HIV+. He actually asked my boss for hand sanitizer (fortunately out of earshot of our client). I already disliked him, but that made it a lot worse. I also overheard him in the Chinese restaurant up the street loudly bragging to someone about this job. Of course, he didn't recognize me, because I'm just staff. I predict a meltdown after 3 months or less of having to, you know, deal with actual people. I'm sort of looking forward to watching what happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Put me on retainer for consults. Weren't you listening? The beauty of CMR is it lets you not deal with other past/current/future lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
Save me jeebus posted:I predict a meltdown after 3 months or less of having to, you know, deal with actual people. I'm sort of looking forward to watching what happens. Didn't see this before but just wanted to drive home actual people =/= other lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 06:16
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:Generally when somebody says "honour" and says things that don't make any sense you can assume they go to a non-American law school.* America really does have a fine legal system   z Seriously though, America's personal injury litigation is a hilarious mess. Should take a note from New Zealands book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:America really does have a fine legal system I personally think the tort system is an essential counterpart to the US's regulatory system but hey what do I know I'm just a guy who never asked the law school thread to do his research for him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 07:20
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Didn't see this before but just wanted to drive home actual people =/= other lawyers. I assume save me jeebus was referring to having to deal with clients.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:I personally think the tort system is an essential counterpart to the US's regulatory system but hey what do I know I'm just a guy who never asked the law school thread to do his research for him. Fair chat I guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I'm pushing a client to settle a case set for trial at the end of the month so I can play Skyrim instead of drafting a pretrial memo and motions in limine I'm at work instead of playing Skyrim. Motherfuck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 12:07
|
|