Agesilaus posted:

Again, it's efficient because they do a lot with a little, something that big law cannot achieve. If your complaint is that the circuit court doesn't give enough money to the pd's office to hire sufficient people, or that you don't like the laws that prosecutors enforce, then those are entirely different matters.

Unamuno posted:

1. Readjust my sleep schedule so I can wake up at 7 AM 3 days in a row (doubt I've done that since high school).

3. Actually solidly memorize all the poo poo I haven't memorized to the point of being automatic yet (specific words and phrases, blah blah).

nm posted:

Make sure you stop like the night before. I think stress gets people more than actually not knowing the answer. You're not going to learn enough to make a difference in that time. Only bar advice that really helped for me.
Just remember that even Glen Learner passed the drat bar eventually.

Arcturas posted:

I think you're confusing efficient as in completes a task with efficient as in provides a high quality service. Can bigger firms produce good quality work for less money than they currently charge? Sure. But I think it's also clear that there is a minimum level of representation, attention, and time given to each case below which the "market" is inefficient because someone's getting screwed regardless of how much (or little) they're paying. I don't mean to knock on PDs - the PDs I know do the very best they can given their caseloads, but also don't know many who don't think they could do a better job for their clients if they could spend more time per client.

If, instead, you're just kvetching about the $/hour cost of 'big firm' fees compared to the $/hour of comparable public institutions (PD, DA/US A, etc) then you have a fair point. But I feel less bad about that since most of the people paying the higher fees are larger corporations or wealthier individuals who could shop around to smaller firms that charge lower hourly rates if they wanted.

CaptainScraps posted:

I'm at the office doing a will and wearing pants and a button-down shirt.

Agesilaus posted:

No, you're the one who is utterly confused; unless you think that public attorneys don't have the ability to perform quality work, then you don't have a point here. All you're indicating is that the public sector is not being funded well enough, not that the public sector is inefficient or that their attorneys are inferior and therefore not comparable. Public offices run in such a fashion that, pound for pound, they clearly out-perform large law firms.

If you turned the tables and gave the public sector big law's budget, and big law the public budget, they would wring their hands and jump ship, while we would serve the entire country's legal needs. On the efficient, public sector side of the equation, you would have larger offices that can handle the case loads they are required to take. On the big law side, you would see a bunch of doc-review clerks poo poo their pants and collapse. Which as far as I can tell is what they do right now when they show up for their pro bono hours.

entris posted:

Ladies, ladies, let's not do this. We are all noble folk here.

MaximumBob posted:

You're a prosecutor in a giant municipality. You have a police force to build cases for you, a system that punishes minor crimes committed by the poor and defenseless so severely that you're guaranteed to have average outcomes that look like impressive victories, and anyone with the means to mount a serious defense probably donates to your bosses or the bosses of the police and there's never a case to go anywhere in the first place.

The bulk of your office's work is no more difficult or impressive than those foreclosure mills that handle thousands upon thousands of proceedings and occasionally make grave mistakes with no consequences. Just instead of kicking people out of their homes you're putting black men in jail. Congratulations, you're clearly more efficient than those overpaid civil litigators.

Stunt Rock posted:

If you have never practiced law while wearing a Forever Lazy you are missing out.

Soothing Vapors posted:

I will never understand why people still seriouspost at grumblefish

never

Soothing Vapors posted:

holy smokes I just googled this and I whipped out my credit card so fast I hurt my wrist

the "zippered hatches" in the back are what sold me

Soothing Vapors posted:

I am addicted to reading e/n solely because the terrible legal advice handed out there by e/n superstars is awesome


holy smokes I just googled this and I whipped out my credit card so fast I hurt my wrist

the "zippered hatches" in the back are what sold me

Roger_Mudd posted:

loving blankets are too complicated and small!

Soothing Vapors posted:

the "zippered hatches" in the back are what sold me

Green Crayons posted:

They're for great escapes when duty calls. Or is it doody?

Tee hee poop joke.

I'm serious oh god why is this real.

Soothing Vapors posted:

I am addicted to reading e/n solely because the terrible legal advice handed out there by e/n superstars is awesome

Omerta posted:

When I was doing my 1L memo (on Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress), there was a case (in Colorado I think) about a 25 year old suing his family for IIED because they wouldn't let him smoke weed in the house and took away his xbox.

quote:

The child had been suspended from school for smoking and selling marijuana, and he subsequently quit school. His mother punished him for his suspension from school by requiring him to cut weeds in the backyard. His mother also sent him to a private school in Italy, where he remained for three months until he was expelled. He resided with his mother for short periods thereafter, and she conditioned further support on his either attending school or seeking employment. The child brought suit against the mother, claiming these actions and others constituted willful and wanton neglect and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment to the mother, and the court affirmed.

Soothing Vapors posted:

I am addicted to reading e/n solely because the terrible legal advice handed out there by e/n superstars is awesome

prussian advisor posted:

Come on, you can't not link some favorites.

prussian advisor posted:

Come on, you can't not link some favorites.

MaximumBob posted:

Congratulations, you're clearly more efficient than those overpaid civil litigators.

Soothing Vapors posted:

I will never understand why people still seriouspost at grumblefish

never

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Somewhere right now there are two biglaw partners bitching about how inefficient their firm is, but I bet the solution isn't "clean shop and raid the DA's office for talent"

Agesilaus posted:

My main hope is that law enforcement starts to seek out big law; I imagine offices could replace part of their misdemeanour call with one focused on a steady stream of lawyer arrests.

Agesilaus posted:

That's because they're bitching about how inefficient the firm beneath them is, not the inefficiency of the general system they love.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Also the DA's office is devoid of talent and most people are there because nobody else will hire them--hate to be the one to break this to you.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Also the DA's office is devoid of talent and most people are there because nobody else will hire them--hate to be the one to break this to you.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

No, it's because defining "efficiency" as "carrying more cases with fewer attorneys" is meaningless, since the driving force behind--and the end result of--the DA's work is a horrid waste of taxpayer money.

Also the DA's office is devoid of talent and most people are there because nobody else will hire them--hate to be the one to break this to you.

Penguins Like Pies posted:

I was rejected by a group of nobodies.

CaptainScraps posted:

I got rejected from volunteering with the group of nobodies

aarontxwl posted:

Going to see Richard Epstein give a talk called "In Praise of the 1%" for Federalist Society at my school today. Should be as hell, though I've heard he's a good speaker.

HiddenReplaced posted:

My firm recently (within the last year) absorbed two partners and their minions from another firm. One of the partners has been a particular concern to my entire practice group (L&E) because he has a habit of saying things that the EEOC would look unfavorably upon.

For example, during a callback reception with the candidates I heard him say, "Where's the [protected class] one?"

Well, today he forwarded an e-mail to the entire attorney-office list serve that contained "ironic" pictures that were meant to be humorous. First of all, no one forwards things to the entire attorney list to begin with. However, the biggest problem was that among those pictures was the following:



I'm the closest work friend of one of the TWO black associates in the firm, so she came by my office and vented. The managing partner then called her to apologize. She's deciding whether to file a formal complaint.

HiddenReplaced posted: