|
You know Sandra Fluke's getting a job out of this 
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:You know Sandra Fluke's getting a job out of this Given that she's been heavily involved in reproductive rights at GULC and GULC's historically done pretty well at getting people placed into related non-profits/advocacy groups, pretty sure she was getting a job anyway. (This won't hurt.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
I heard Brazzers already offered her a job
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I heard Brazzers already offered her a job Wish they'd offer me one 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:You know Sandra Fluke's getting a job out of this Wish Rush would call me a slut.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
I went to a lecture on the America Invents Act and this is some convoluted stuff. Especially the old law/new law split based on support for claims. USPTO examiners already can't examine support for poo poo and I can tell this is going to turn into a huge clusterfuck. I think it's all a scam to keep patent attorneys and patent agents employed forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Zo posted:I went to a lecture on the America Invents Act and this is some convoluted stuff. Especially the old law/new law split based on support for claims. do what now
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Can you give an example, or are you asking in general? Depending on what I'm looking for, for what reason, and how well I know that area of law, I'll start my research differently.  That thing. I'm just talking generally. My current job is basically "give me the answer to this topic that you as a 2L probably don't know much about." I eventually get around to finding an answer, but (1) I'm basically manually sifting through cases and trying to synthesize precedent and (2) I don't know if I'm catching the bigger picture. In the first instance I don't know if I'm missing a key element of the particular topic and in the second I don't know if there's just something "out there" that deserves attention due to implications. Obviously, "just look harder" is an answer -- but I'm hoping to also work smarter. Or is just "click through cases" the optimal research method?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:do what now If for example a PCT application filed after march 16, 2013 claims priority to an application before that date, it will be treated as first to invent so long as it does not have, nor have ever had, a claim that is not supported by the priority document. So basically in a split case like that every amendment must be checked for whether it is supported by the old law priority application. From my understanding at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
You know those courses they offer where a Westlaw rep shows you how to use Westlaw? Sounds like you could use one. Here are a few tips. If you have a statute that you know applies, start with that statute. Go to the "notes of decisions" tabs, and look through the options. Use more focused searches. Natural language is okay, but learn to use the quotation marks and /s /p /2 connectors. When you have a good case, look at the headnotes and find the little thing under the headnote relevant to your issue that says "cases citing this headnote." Follow that. If you have a good case, look at the "citing references" and "history" tabs for more authority. Remember to check what headnote you are looking at in your case, so you can narrow down the citing references to that headnote. Unfortunately not fully being able to grasp the larger picture in cases and what you are researching is just something that you get over with experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Next has basically gotten rid of the /p stuff. It is pretty good. The rest is basically what I do. Green Crayons posted:
With westlaw next, you basically treat it like google. Works for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
I still feel like I get better results using the connectors--I thought next still uses them but also allows natural language?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
Also, when you are looking through statutes, don't be afraid to click on the table of contents. It's really helpful if you know that your question is somewhere in title 46 of the US code, but you don't know exactly where---you can read all the headings on the same page. This is great for checking to make sure you aren't missing some exception or something, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
.
Stop fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I still feel like I get better results using the connectors--I thought next still uses them but also allows natural language? I use it sometimes, but many times a simple "What I want" works. However, my stuff is pretty obscure these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:
I always start with a treatise on a topic. If I don't know what sort of treatise would address my issue, I start with Michie's or some other broad digest of legal topics, and find my problem there. Those two sources (Michie's or a treatise) will often start me off with a couple of cases. I use those sample cases to figure out what lexis terms or Westlaw key numbers are relevant to my issue, and then I use those terms or key numbers to search in my jurisdiction for relevant cases. If I have a statute as a starting point, I'll check the statute's annotations first. If the statute was part of a model act (put out by the National Commission on Uniform State Laws - google that when looking for model acts and go to their website), then I'll pull the draft model act and take a look in the comments for some elucidation on the issue. Occasionally I will pull up an American Law Report if it's on the relevant topic. Sometimes I'll pull out a Restatement, if there is one. Full-text case searching is one of the last things I do, and only once I know what my search terms should be. FYI your law library is full of books and poo poo where people have already done and summarized the research for most legal topics. Books are almost always a great place to start. entris fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Mar 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
Westlaw Next is kinda dumb. Even if you use quotation marks, if you use the main Google-esque bar, you need to use some kind of tag like the /p /s ! or whatever to let it know you want to do a terms and connectors search. Otherwise it will treat it as natural language, and won't even recognize the quotation marks. I found this to be a pain in the rear end for months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:So what is the most efficient method of legal research? I'm just typing in "<applicable but random search term>" into the Westlaw google bar and then start reading up on cases. That just feels so ineffectual. I use lexis because I'm a jerk, but our Lexis guys always recommends. 1) Lexis treatises (Or westlaw, if you're into that kinda thing), and then maybe LR articles. 2) Find relevant core cases 3) Shephardize(on Lexis) or Keycite (on Westlaw) to find other cases that talk about stuff. I'm taking his word for it because I'm bad at research. Also, I think you mean "impart" your wisdom, although it might be more accurate to say that my wisdom "departed" me when I decided to come to law school.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:So what is the most efficient method of legal research? I'm just typing in "<applicable but random search term>" into the Westlaw google bar and then start reading up on cases. That just feels so ineffectual. Call the free research help 800 number and tell them what you are looking for. They will help you find it. Seriously, I've done this on obscure things and they've always been able to walk me through it, and quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
HE Pennypacker posted:Call the free research help 800 number and tell them what you are looking for. They will help you find it. This is huge. It's a great service.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:
Us po' folks don't have Westlaw Next. If it's an area of law that you're not all that familiar with yet, start with google, pull up 8 or 9 pages that look promising and skim them - usually 1 or 2 will be useful, and you can use them to cross-check each other. Now that you kind of know the lay of the land and the the key vocabulary you can narrow your google search some more and start to get a little deeper knowledge. When you've got a handle on the framework and the vocabulary, you can jump over to Westlaw/Lexis and you now know better what/how to ask for. Natural language is good for for "I'm still not quite sure what I want yet," boolean if you've got a better handle on what you want. Boolean is better. Once you've got some cases and you've read around a bit, go up to the headnotes you're interested in and look at the "most cited case" result - that'll give you and idea of the the 'go to' cases on the subject in a jurisdiction. (I haven't used Lexis this millennium, so i don't know if they're improved beyond the "select the text you're interested in and we'll do a natural language search on the words" analogue to key numbers. Searching backwards up through the key numbers branches and doing a little bit of exploring can also help catch some of the 'key' elements and 'something out there' stuff. Like Phil said, if you can get to a statute, the 'notes of decisions' are really good for this, too. I don't know how helpful this is. Could you give an example of a specific question /research task you've received?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
Unlimited research was awesome. For most of my clients, I need specific client preapproval for each task. I end up using google scholar a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
I wish Westlaw would let you use regular expressions 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Us po' folks don't have Westlaw Next. gvibes posted:Unlimited research was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:Westlaw Next is kinda dumb. Even if you use quotation marks, if you use the main Google-esque bar, you need to use some kind of tag like the /p /s ! or whatever to let it know you want to do a terms and connectors search. Otherwise it will treat it as natural language, and won't even recognize the quotation marks. I found this to be a pain in the rear end for months. I'm pretty sure you can type adv: at the beginning of your search to make it a terms and connectors search. I know it's something like that. It is really annoying when you accidentally do a natural language search and all the results suck though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 07:55
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I'm just talking generally. My current job is basically "give me the answer to this topic that you as a 2L probably don't know much about." I eventually get around to finding an answer, but (1) I'm basically manually sifting through cases and trying to synthesize precedent and (2) I don't know if I'm catching the bigger picture. In the first instance I don't know if I'm missing a key element of the particular topic and in the second I don't know if there's just something "out there" that deserves attention due to implications.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I still feel like I get better results using the connectors--I thought next still uses them but also allows natural language? It does. I've found the best approach for me when using Next is to use the general search tab like Google, and then using the "search within" results tab to narrow it down with terms/connectors. Best of both worlds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:It does. I've found the best approach for me when using Next is to use the general search tab like Google, and then using the "search within" results tab to narrow it down with terms/connectors. Best of both worlds. I've done this too, but I just feel silly searching for, say, "civil conspiracy" and then doing a search within for "civil conspiracy."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Westlaw Next is awful and retarded. Here's your search methodology: (1) Is it a claim? Read the model jury instructions. They'll contain links to every big relevant case. (2) Is it something you know nothing about? Narrow by practice area and read a treatise (3) Is it a case? Check law reviews and sort by treatment. Do you have absolutely no idea? Call Lexis or Westlaw research support. I'm pretty sure it's free. Plus you can probably bill your time on hold under research.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
Zo posted:If for example a PCT application filed after march 16, 2013 claims priority to an application before that date, it will be treated as first to invent so long as it does not have, nor have ever had, a claim that is not supported by the priority document. That's always been the case, though. An application's effective filing date is the earliest filing date that has support for all the claims, and the controlling statutory law is the law as of the effective filing date.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Speaking of searching for things, as a patent examiner, a lot of my job is searching for things. We have our own internal database of patent literature, and a decent search interface (we have the TERM1 nearN TERM2 operator for searching two terms within N words of each other; the TERM1 with TERM2 for two terms in the same sentence; and TERM1 same TERM2 for two terms in the same paragraph. also, we can restrict searches within structured portions of the patent document, like google.as. would find patents issued to google, etc.). The only issue I have is that it's a straight text search, and plurals is the best we get for modifying search strings. I'll use google scholar/google patents, but it can be very frustrating trying to search for something like a search engine for pictures there, because merely putting in "search internet picture" (without quotes) as a search string can get you all over the place. I'd love to figure out how to force google to locate terms within the same paragraph of a document, because that'd make my life a lot easier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:That's always been the case, though. An application's effective filing date is the earliest filing date that has support for all the claims, and the controlling statutory law is the law as of the effective filing date. Out of all the US cases I've done (which admittedly is not a huge number) I've yet to see a support rejection. On the other hand when I adopt granted US claims in EP or Japan support issues often pop up. I just wonder if the new law will become an impetus for US examiners to actually examine for support 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
So what lesson did I take away from writing my paper last minute? Absolutely nothing. On the bright side, my presentation on the same topic is a little more researched and actually has some substance. Here's to hoping my caffeine/sugar crash comes after my presentation and not afterwards.  What makes me a little upset is that if I had refined my topic a little bit better in the beginning (so focusing on defence rather than both prosecution and defence because I really wanted to use a high profile trial), it would've been an easier topic. Screw you, 3L. Penguins Like Pies fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Mar 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
Zo posted:Out of all the US cases I've done (which admittedly is not a huge number) I've yet to see a support rejection. On the other hand when I adopt granted US claims in EP or Japan support issues often pop up. Here's a situation I had: I had a continuation on my docket (for the purposes of explanation, the '333 application) that claimed support from two earlier applications (further for the purposes of explanation, '111 and '222 applications). The '222 application had gone abandoned after filing the '333 application, the '222 application was filed after the '111 application but did not claim priority to it, and the '222 application had received a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using the '111 application as one of the references. The '333 application was filed using the same claims as had been contained in the '222 application at the time the rejection in that application was made, but made a claim of priority to both the '111 and '222 applications. My response was the claims in the '333 application were clearly not supported by the '111 application, as otherwise a sec. 102 rejection would have been made in the '222 application over the '111 application.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:Westlaw Next is kinda dumb. Even if you use quotation marks, if you use the main Google-esque bar, you need to use some kind of tag like the /p /s ! or whatever to let it know you want to do a terms and connectors search. Otherwise it will treat it as natural language, and won't even recognize the quotation marks. I found this to be a pain in the rear end for months. 1.) Open Next 2.) conduct a search for two phrases (e.g. "summary disposition" & "brutal sodomy") 3.) open top result 4.) ctrl-f for "summary" -- not found 5.) ctrl-f for "brutal" -- not found 6.) repeat on every page of document because Next likes to split 9 page cases up into 4 screens for no reason 7.) start screaming incoherently until my throat is a tattered bloody mess 8.) goto 1
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Okay, so I just got my LSAT mark - 160. This was after probably 45 hrs studying total, with only about 10 in the 3 weeks prior to the exam, due to my work schedule. It doesn't seem like the breakdown of answers by category is up (February was non-disclosed), but I'm fairly certain I tanked the logic games section (the one which wasn't experimental, as far as I can tell). I understand that this is probably the easiest portion to bump up with good studying. For reference, my GPA is around a 3.1-3.5, depending on which potential schools I'm looking at will calculate it. A 160 is not great I know, but given I'm in Canada, it will be good enough to get me into my local mid-market school (with admittedly poor chance of funding). However, if by next fall I'm still tentatively going ahead with the idea of law school, I will also be applying to UofT, York, UBC, and maybe a couple others. Because of this, I will almost definately be rewriting the LSAT, either over the summer, or next December (likely next December). If I go to law school, it will be for tax law; I will be getting my CA in December 2012, with heavy work involvement in tax, so I'll have a much better handle on it than some of my peers would in 2L. I also feel my accounting firm experience (3 years) will give me a leg up on hiring, especially compared with K-JD students. Now for the questions (some may be dumb; I applied solely to my local university for undergrad, so I know nothing of college applications) - if it pleases council, please advise: (1) I know my grades are average, and my LSAT is average (I'd hope I can bump up the 160 up a few notches on a retake). I am not a URM by any stretch, though I might have a small shot at financial bursery. The only real thing I would have to set me apart would be the ", CA" at the end of my name. I know that anything beyond LSAT, GPA, & URM comes last in application review, but it would mean at least something right? For stats purposes, I've seen schools list their masters students in attendance, so maybe they could squeeze me into that category, and I would be valued as a result? (2) Some schools I may apply to have application deadlines in November. I will not have my CA final exam (the UFE) p/f grade back until December. I will further not have my required work experience until end of December/into January/February. So by December I could put on my application "passed the UFE, currently completing work term requirements for Chartered Accounting designation". By January, I could put "CA". In the meantime, all I can put in my summary is "working towards CA designation, wrote the UFE" (which as far as I know, would mean bubkis). Is there a way for me to call these November-deadline schools after December, and revise my application? Sort of a "PS, I'm a CA" kind of deal. (3) Related, how does it work when you write an LSAT after you've submitted your application? Some schools I might apply to accept February 2013 LSAT marks for the fall 2013 year, even though applications are due in November/December 2012. When they get the updated LSAT marks, would the applications committee take another look at the entire application package? (4) Does anyone in Canada know how a law school might view the CICA tax in-depth courses on an application? Especially now that in preparation for the whole CPA merger thing, they may institute a "CA.Tax" designation (though that's at least 3 years away)? If I don't apply for fall 2013, I may apply later on, and I'd like to know how that might strengthen my profile. (5) Related: Does anyone know why Waterloo doesn't offer a combined MTax/JD program? It seems like a natural fit, and they even offer combined JD/MArts(Philos) degrees, so I don't know what gives here. (6) Further-ly related: would it be pointless to get an MTax before a JD? Maybe it would be better to get a JD, get some work experience, and then if the situation warrants it, get an LLM in tax? (7) How 'bout them Jets? -M. rockin peanut, Esq. at law
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Uh, Waterloo doesn't have a law school, which explains the dearth of combined JD programs.
WaveLength fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Mar 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Here's a situation I had: That owns. When I see sweet rejections I tend to give the examiner a lot more street cred than otherwise. Especially US examiners are a hugely mixed bunch since you get grizzled litigation vets and morons straight out of school all in one bag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
WaveLength posted:Uh, Waterloo doesn't have a law school, which explains the dearth of combined JD programs. Duhhhr, must have mistook Western for Waterloo on something I was reading about joint initiatives between them. That would explain it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
I don't know how much a CA would help for tax practice. All my law profs have been terrible with numbers and in my Tax class the number stuff was referred to (derogatorily) as accountant work. Your best bet would be to email a partner at a bigger firm (try Toronto, 7 sisters) who practices in tax and ask them straight up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 04:08
|
|
