|
Zarkov Cortez posted:All my law profs have been terrible with numbers and in my Tax class the number stuff was referred to (derogatorily) as accountant work. I went to Dollarama to buy myself a non-programmable calculator with colourful buttons for my tax final last semester. I don't even know if the thing works since I didn't have to use it. vv  vv I have 1 month and 14 days until I'm done my last exam (as long as I don't fail anything  )
Penguins Like Pies fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Mar 7, 2012 |
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Holy poo poo. Two months of law school left. Cmoooon...
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
rockin peanut posted: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. When you apply there will be a little note on your application telling the school that you have another score pending, and I'm pretty sure that if you're not let in during the initial selection round, they'll re-evaluate it when that score comes in. For most schools, it's pretty important to apply early as well, as a lot of them do rolling admissions. Your CA probably isn't a great URM, and the CICA stuff wouldn't be a consideration at all. An MTax would probably factor into admissions and potential financial assistance, but it's not worth it to spend the time getting one if you aren't already working on it. In my case, I had a lovely undergrad CGPA (~3.3), a decent last 2 (~3.7-3.8), and a high LSAT (172), but I applied while I was finishing up my master's, and I'm pretty sure my high grad school GPA was what pushed me over the top and got me a generous scholarship. In your case, since it'd take an extra year or two before you start, and since it probably wouldn't be enough to help you get any financial assistance, it's definitely not worth it to get an MTax instead of waiting for an LLM. As a side-note, with a 3.1-3.5 and a 160, you're a borderline candidate at most Canadian schools. I wouldn't waste the money applying to UofT or UBC unless you're confident that you can get your LSAT to 170+, which you'd need to compensate for your low GPA (and for UofT you'd probably actually have to get it up to 175). Assuming that a 3.1-3.5/160 is enough to get you into a local mid-market school is pretty dangerous. I'm assuming the 3.5 would be at UofS and UofM, but even then a 3.5/160 wouldn't guarantee you a spot. Entrance stats are getting more competitive every year, and you're still slightly below average at both of those schools. Get your LSAT to 165 and you'd be a near-lock at either of those schools though. Finally, I'd warn you to think about where you want to practice before applying to schools across the country. I'm at the UofS right now, and I've been told by partners from every big firm in town that they're incredibly reluctant to articling students from outside of Saskatchewan. I've heard that Manitoba is pretty similar, and that for the most part Calgary doesn't really hire from outside of the Saskatchewan/Alberta/BC schools. If it comes down to going to an Ontario school other than UofT, or a BC school other than UBC, you're probably way better off just going to your local school instead of going to another mid-tier school across the country, assuming you want to go back after you graduate. The prestige or whatever from going to Osgoode Hall wouldn't give you any advantage if you want to work back in Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, or Regina, so my best advice to you would just be to focus on getting into your local school or one of the nearby ones, rather than heading to the other side of the country. bub spank fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Mar 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
burf posted:Okay, this makes sense. I guess I needed a bit of a reality check. After looking into it, my GPA will be calculated as a 3.6 at my 'safety' school, so I'm still comfortable. In any case, I'm not invested in going the law route, but I'll make sure to put a heavier emphasis on retaking the LSAT if that's still what I want to do down the road from now. Thanks for the help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
rockin peanut posted:Okay, this makes sense. I guess I needed a bit of a reality check. After looking into it, my GPA will be calculated as a 3.6 at my 'safety' school, so I'm still comfortable. In any case, I'm not invested in going the law route, but I'll make sure to put a heavier emphasis on retaking the LSAT if that's still what I want to do down the road from now. Thanks for the help. Dude, forget law! Get your CA and rule the world!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
WaveLength posted:Dude, forget law! Get your CA and rule the world! False. The real reason to become a CA is this video. Any redblooded Canadian will recognize the narration of this man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
MechaFrogzilla posted:Holy poo poo. Two months of law school left. Cmoooon... uhhhg I can't believe it's almost been a year since I graduated...what the gently caress happened to my year...
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
rockin peanut posted:False. The real reason to become a CA is this video.  Penguins Like Pies posted:I went to Dollarama to buy myself a non-programmable calculator with colourful buttons for my tax final last semester. I don't even know if the thing works since I didn't have to use it. The only number stuff I can remember being on my Tax exam was CCA calculations which were simple enough to do in my head. The numbers weren't important either, since it was to test whether people remembered the half-year rule and when/if CCA could be taken. Zarkov Cortez fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Mar 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Turns out there are jobs out there: http://www.pressconnects.com/articl...ext%7CFRONTPAGE
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Turns out there are jobs out there: God, if you're going to bribe somebody to get your kid a job, at least get him a better job than that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
So... I was watching kitchen nightmares where the restaurant owner had registered the word Hon and people were all butt hurt about her sending cease and desist letters. While they were discussing this I kept thinking how the gently caress could she have registered Hon and why didn't the recipients just file to have her TM expunged. Thanks law school! e: I finished watching the episode and she was sending cease and desist letters to people using the word Hon for non-retail stuff and in conjunction with other words (part of a website url). Zarkov Cortez fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Mar 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
I had a nightmare last night involving most of my class running from a pretty vicious serial killer. I'm embarrassed to admit that, in one instance, a tableau was involved. Not sure if too much TV or too much law school stress...
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
I was planning on going solo and renting an office in the chambers I'm articling in now. But my boss made me a job offer, which amounts to a salary of 50% more than I'm earning now, plus 50% of the bill on whatever files I bring in, and he'll pay some of the rent on my office. Thoughts? On one hand, financially it seems to make more sense, since even if I bring in 0 clients I'll still make more money. On the other, I'll be working for someone else, and even if it's a pseudo partnership there's obviously going to be a hierarchy...
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff, I would take the offer just to establish yourself post-articling. Learn more, build up a client base, save up some cash, and then leave in a couple years. I don't know how much you like your firm/current boss though, because if you don't like it/him, then jet. No point in putting up with misery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:I was planning on going solo and renting an office in the chambers I'm articling in now. But my boss made me a job offer, which amounts to a salary of 50% more than I'm earning now, plus 50% of the bill on whatever files I bring in, and he'll pay some of the rent on my office. What Penguins says. Plus if things don't work out, you can stop working for him, hopefully keep your clients and then hang out your own shingle. If client/attorney ethics and transfer work anything like it does in the US, which it might not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:I was planning on going solo and renting an office in the chambers I'm articling in now. But my boss made me a job offer, which amounts to a salary of 50% more than I'm earning now, plus 50% of the bill on whatever files I bring in, and he'll pay some of the rent on my office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:I was planning on going solo and renting an office in the chambers I'm articling in now. But my boss made me a job offer, which amounts to a salary of 50% more than I'm earning now, plus 50% of the bill on whatever files I bring in, and he'll pay some of the rent on my office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 13:20
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:So... I was watching kitchen nightmares where the restaurant owner had registered the word Hon and people were all butt hurt about her sending cease and desist letters. While they were discussing this I kept thinking how the gently caress could she have registered Hon and why didn't the recipients just file to have her TM expunged. It's probably incontestible at this point, so you can't "just file to have her TM expunged."
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:It's probably incontestible at this point, so you can't "just file to have her TM expunged." Yeah, about the best you could do is claim it's generic, but then the question is: generic for what? That said, the woman pretty clearly has no idea about the limited scope of TM rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:It's probably incontestible at this point, so you can't "just file to have her TM expunged." I was surprised how it could have passed distinctiveness requirement. Also after watching the episode it sounded like she was trying to enforce the TM for non-registered and non-used services/products.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I was surprised how it could have passed distinctiveness requirement. Also after watching the episode it sounded like she was trying to enforce the TM for non-registered and non-used services/products. Why wouldn't it be able to pass the distinctiveness requirement? It doesn't seem to be descriptive or suggestive, and I can't imagine it would be generic since I don't know what "Hon" even means (short for "honey" maybe?).
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:Why wouldn't it be able to pass the distinctiveness requirement? It doesn't seem to be descriptive or suggestive, and I can't imagine it would be generic since I don't know what "Hon" even means (short for "honey" maybe?). It is short for Honey and is widely used even here in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I was surprised how it could have passed distinctiveness requirement. Also after watching the episode it sounded like she was trying to enforce the TM for non-registered and non-used services/products. I'll never really understand how trademark law confuses so many people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
us normals don't care about your weird rules about words and poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:It is short for Honey and is widely used even here in Canada. Even if "hon" is generic for "honey," if she's not selling honey, it's not generic. It's suggestive at worst, arbitrary at best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
I'm trying to get a handle of how work is broken down in the legal industry, and how much time you all spend working in different jobs. About how many hours a week do you spend working in the office? How much time working outside of the office? How much of your working hours is billable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Zaleov posted:I'm trying to get a handle of how work is broken down in the legal industry, and how much time you all spend working in different jobs. About how many hours a week do you spend working in the office? How much time working outside of the office? How much of your working hours is billable? Your question is not very clear. By "in the office" do you literally mean sitting at my desk? Does "out of the office" only refer to time I spend working at home, or do you literally mean any time I'm working outside of the office? If you go do a deposition or interviews you're going to be out of the office the whole day. What are you asking for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Zaleov posted:I'm trying to get a handle of how work is broken down in the legal industry, and how much time you all spend working in different jobs. About how many hours a week do you spend working in the office? How much time working outside of the office? How much of your working hours is billable? (assuming 'working outside the office' means taking work home) 45 0 0 Public employee, state appellate criminal defense. 50-55 0-5 0 Public employee, state trial criminal defense. 50 0 about 2/3 Insurance defense firm 40 0-5 0 Judge Advocate (non deployed)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Your question is not very clear. By "in the office" do you literally mean sitting at my desk? Does "out of the office" only refer to time I spend working at home, or do you literally mean any time I'm working outside of the office? If you go do a deposition or interviews you're going to be out of the office the whole day. What are you asking for? Good points all around. I'll rephrase to "within normal business hours (i.e. 8-6)" vs. "outside of normal business hours". joat mon, I think you did a pretty good job of summarizing a few different career paths, despite my lack of clarity. Part of the reason I was wondering is on ATL and other places, I often see discussions of how many billable hours a person might work in a year, but I was unsure of how that translated to hours/week of real work (or hours/week that you can't spend as leisure time).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
Zaleov posted:Good points all around. I'll rephrase to "within normal business hours (i.e. 8-6)" vs. "outside of normal business hours". joat mon, I think you did a pretty good job of summarizing a few different career paths, despite my lack of clarity. I'm in 10KBELOWMARKETLAW. It's either "midlaw" or a "boutique"....I have no idea. The point is, I make 10k less than what the biglaw folks make. Normal Business Hours: 45-50 a week. Generally get in somewhere between 8:30 to 9:00, work until 6ish. Sometimes I go out for lunch, sometimes I don't. Outside of Normal Hours: 2-8 a week. A little bit throughout the week, occasional half day on the weekend. Billable: Around 80%. HiddenReplaced fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
HR has a baller job though. Tack on another 2 hours a day and full day on the weekend if you're talking hugelaw (like King & Spalding).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
so, i submitted a bunch of law school applications. (submitted end up Feb) some of these are saying it can take up to 14 weeks to review my application. i feel like this is probably a bit cushioned (hah). how long am i looking at before i hear start hearing back from some of these schools, realistically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
Did you use caps in your applications?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
ALL CAPS
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
nern posted:so, i submitted a bunch of law school applications. (submitted end up Feb) Are you in the United States? Why did you submit so late in the cycle? You need to be more specific about what schools you applied to and how competitive you are at being admitted. Also, are you a URM?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:I'm in 10KBELOWMARKETLAW. It's either "midlaw" or a "boutique"....I have no idea. The point is, I make 10k less than what the biglaw folks make. This is my job except I get paid 50k less than you 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Having applied that late you can probably expect to get rejection letters in a few months, then get waitlisted at the crappier schools you applied to until August.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:This is my job except I get paid 50k less than you Don't worry, I'm 10k below Atlanta market, which is no where near 160k. God I wish Atlanta market was 160...
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
nern posted:so, i submitted a bunch of law school applications. (submitted end up Feb) The way it generally works is that the people whose GPA/LSAT/etc are well above a school's median get acceptances quickly, GPA/LSAT etc well below a school's median will get rejected quickly, and GPA/LAST/etc near the median will wait weeks or months before they hear back. Now obviously this gets affected by how many applications the school has pending and how many slots they have left to fill for their next class. So you're more likely to wait many weeks/months if your application is in the post-New Year deluge and there are relatively few slots remaining in the 1L class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Zaleov posted:Good points all around. I'll rephrase to "within normal business hours (i.e. 8-6)" vs. "outside of normal business hours". joat mon, I think you did a pretty good job of summarizing a few different career paths, despite my lack of clarity. My hours vary a lot; my worst week was probably ~80 billable hours, and it's not uncommon to have a stretch of a few days / ruined weekend to meet a deadline. Some weeks, though, I'm not really busy at all and I read books in the office from 10-5pm and hide to avoid work. In general, regardless of where you are, it's always possible to get a call or an email requiring you to come back to work, though that happens very rarely to me because I've tried to avoid the kinds of deals where that happens. My firm is known for having really long hours, and I suspect I have billed and worked among the fewest hours of the first-years doing transactional work. Working from home vs. in the office depends on the deal and the partner you're working for; for me it's generally fine, but I find I'm significantly more productive in the office so I try to work there as much as possible. My ratio of billed hours to worked hours really depends on how busy I am. I pretty much need to be in the office on weekdays from 10-5 or so even if there's nothing for me to do, so on those days or weeks my ratio is terrible. On the other hand, when a deal is busy I would estimate that almost all of my worked time is billable. Any time that I spend in the office after hours or on the weekends is billable, so when you have a lot of that time, your ratio improves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:23
|
|