|
gvibes posted:Why did it take me so long to start the second season of this show. Because you are an adult.  Also I hadn't heard of this story before: http://www.readthehook.com/103189/transcriptgate-uva-law-student-waives-gets-trial-date quote:Joshua Peter Gomes, the former UVA law student and former fashion model charged with breaking into the university registrar's office, waived a preliminary hearing April 12, and will go to trial on two felony burglary charges and a felony possession of burglary tools charge. I don't understand how someone at a top law school - any law school in the top 25, really (except for Chicago) - does this. What's the thought process? "Herp derp if I doctor my transcripts, I can land a super-primo job with BigLaw" ?? This appears to be the only way to make going to law school an even dumber investment - for maximum effect, get caught pulling poo poo like this your 3L spring.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
does anyone have any criminal procedure: adjudication practice exams? more rules, less constitution please. EDIT: semi-urgent (final is Wednesday morning lol) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Wow, $285.00 for a first time speeding ticket. Burn all the things. EDIT: Do you all get to schedule your exams, out of curiosity? Solid Lizzie fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
L&LSMT #13: We just moved in with my mother-in-law
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
entris posted:My wife and I actually have a great relationship, but we just moved in with my mother-in-law Lmao Business of Ferrets posted:L&LSMT #13: We just moved in with my mother-in-law Hehe I think it should be the whole part I quoted
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Trip report from the library. Everyone wearing sweatpants and unshaven. Three asian girls watched anime for about two hours. I wanted to go talk to them but I was scared because they were so kawaii ~~ Phil Moscowitz posted:Hehe I think it should be the whole part I quoted I approve, but I like the shorter version. The longer version implies functional relationships are possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 03:07
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Trip report from the library. Everyone wearing sweatpants and unshaven. Clearly it's time for http://www.betabrand.com/favorites/gray-dress-pant-sweatpants.html . Gunner tested, gunner approved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Hey now, we only moved in with my mother-in-law because we just had a baby, and our apartment wasn't working with a new baby at all. That decision had nothing to do with law or money or anything. My music playlist for late night work includes Britany Spears and that one song by the Eurythmics, so I guess I can't dog on people for liking anime that appears to be 95% fanservice for pedophiles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Trip report from the library. Everyone wearing sweatpants and unshaven. Just got back from the main university library, it smells so goddamn bad in there right now. I can only imagine what horrors reside in the law library.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
Researching the Tennessee gift tax, I come across this gem:quote:Economist Arthur Laffer urged Tennessee lawmakers on Monday to follow up on their plans to phase out the estate tax with a cut to the state’s tax on gifts, which he said curbs economic growth. This is the guy that brought us the Laffer Curve, which (on its face) isn't a terrible theory, but Republicans have interpreted the Laffer Curve to mean "taxes must always be lower" which is not what it says. This guy is so annoying, ugh. edit: ugh, and here's an article explaining why he should gently caress off: http://www.itepnet.org/pdf/lafferestate0412.pdf entris fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
entris posted:Hey now, we only moved in with my mother-in-law because we just had a baby, and our apartment wasn't working with a new baby at all. That decision had nothing to do with law or money or anything. Now I'm even more  about being a government lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Millennial posted:Hi Cwapface. I'm an Australian QUT law student studying my final subject right now. I can tell you that legal academia certainly is a lot easier to get a foothold into than humanities, there is no question about that. As for your prospects outside academia, that really depends a lot on your undergraduate GPA. I guess it really depends what you want out of the program. This is really good info, thanks. You're echoing a lot of what I already suspected and had been told, so it's nice for that to be reinforced. With regards to honours in an LLB: since I would be in the grad entry program, I wouldn't be eligible. Honours is only for four-year undergrads. Honours in law also seems like a really stupid system. I assume when you say honours are important, you mean honours Class I is important because, well, look at this. This is from UQ's website. Class I 6.00 + Class IIA 5.50 - 5.99 Class IIB 5.20 - 5.49 In American GPA terms, those numbers are 3.0+ for I, 2.5-2.9 for IIA, and 2.2 - 2.5 for IIB. Maybe a decimal place more since you can't have a GPA over 7 in Australia, but I think it's possible to have a GPA just over 4.0 in the USA if your marks are flawless, right? Now, it seems to me like grades would need to be massively deflated in law for this to mean anything. I think in the entirety of my undergrad (which was four years rather than three - I hosed around with a dual degree for a while) I got less than a 5.5 for a subject no more than twice. Normally, getting Class I, Class IIA or IIB in your honours year means you averaged a 7, 6, or 5. But in four-year law, you only need a 6 average for honours Class I and you're not even required to hand in a thesis. That sounds very soft to me. I have honours Class I in philosophy. History students will bitch about this, but honours in philosophy is generally thought to be harder than honours in other disciplines at UQ. That's because instead of the standard 20,000 word thesis + coursework for the whole year, you do two 10,000 word theses and lose two months in the middle of the year between them to holidays that every other honours student, having a year-long research project, simply works through (though obviously if you're at all smart, you're at least thinking about your second thesis during break, though you still can't start lining up a supervisor until the start of second semester). You have to write two half-length research papers on different topics over 4 months each rather than one twice the length over 10 months. This makes a lot of sense, since papers between 10,000 and 30,000 words just don't exist in philosophy. If you wrote a 20,000 word paper for honours, that would be the only paper of that size you ever wrote. My point is, though, that honours in other disciplines is about demonstrating capacity to a) do real research, and b) get along with academics and earnestly expose yourself to fields outside your own (coursework). Honours Class I is supposed to mean that your thesis (or theses) are publishable with no more than minor tweaking, and that's pretty much the case (at least outside of science, where your research may well have been of publishable quality but devoid of any results worth publishing). Simply averaging a 5.2 over four years of undergrad indicates, at least to me, that you're an average student possessed of some willingness to study when required. Not that honours IIB is particularly impressive if you've done it primarily by research, but it is demonstrative of a different skillset than simply getting a certain grade out of the classroom. I guess what I'm saying is that a 6.0 average doesn't seem like it ought to be hugely impressive unless grades in law are massively depressed compared to the rest of the university. Averaging a 6.0 in a given semester doesn't even guarantee you a spot on the Dean's List. If I'm sounding like a pretentious dick, I'm sorry, and I don't mean to. But handing out honours of any class for maintaining a GPA of 5.2 seems a lot like giving out medals for track for not having fallen over during your race, unless grades are so deflated in law that averaging a 5.2 puts you no lower than the top 15% of your class. All that said, while being in the grad program and therefore ineligible for honours in law won't mean my GPA will be any less important in terms of employment, I wouldn't need honours in law if I wanted to do a PhD. I already have honours in philosophy and will (probably) have an M.Phil by the time I even start to think about a PhD in law (assuming I would want to do that, which I may very well not), so long as my grades weren't outright poo poo not having honours oughtn't mean a thing, since my ability to do serious research is already proven to some extent. I could already do a PhD that was significantly law-relevant, so if I was serious about postgrad law opportunities (which it seems a bit silly to be thinking about at this point), keeping a GPA that might open up top overseas LLM programs seems a more worthy thing to keep my eye towards than a PhD program. It's not that hard in Australia to convince someone to give you a funded crack at a doctorate. entris posted:It might have been the "relationship between science and religion thread" but I couldn't find your posts in there - but in the process, I re-read some of your posts in the "what is good" thread. quote:As someone who studied philosophy in undergrad, including several seminars on contemporary philosophers of the "postmodern" bent, I found the world of law to be wholly disconnected from the sort of intellectual discussions that we see among philosophy people. I know you love metaethics, and you really seem to dig it, but law is, for the most part, about business and economics. (With a few exceptions, like crimlaw or the rare First Amendment practice.) Do I somehow give of the impression that I'm not an analytic to the core; that down to my very bones I'm anything but a staunch adherent to the Anglo-American philosophical tradition? Because if I give off the air of giving a single gently caress about any school of thought less than 300 years old that could in any way be described as Contintental, that's a major worry. I mean, look at my custom title. That I'm being rigourous and as precise as I can be are really the only two goals I have in my work. It doesn't even really matter that I truly believe what I'm saying so long as I find the argument convincing. I don't know if that's a particularly advantageous attitude to have for a law student, but it doesn't seem like it would be a major disadvantage, either. Does it seem as if I'm wildly misunderstanding the kind of thinking required for the study and/or practice of law? I'm attracted to metaethics because I think it's one of the very few fields in philosophy where there are some real answers to be had about anything. Questions like, "What does moral speech mean?" And, "How do people think about right and wrong?" are questions we can attempt to answer without committing ourselves to pissing up an endless rope of further questions for all eternity (or until physicists answer our questions for us). We can do some real research (i.e. data gathering), define a few things by fiat in the way that best suits honest normative enquiry and go home. There's ample room for real pragmatism. I have never been attracted to those branches of philosophy that value questions more than they value attempts to answer questions. Except, perhaps, the study of logical paradoxes, but then what kind of a boring shithead doesn't like a good bit of vicious self-reference? I have no time whatsoever for that kind of Deleuzional creative writing that often masquerades as scholarly work. quote:So if you want to remain the person you are today, then you need to stay in legal academia once you get out of law school - and here in the U.S., that is all but impossible unless you go to a top 5 school or so. I don't know how it is in Australia. Maybe with a joint degree it is easier to stay in academia over there? I dunno. Am I right in thinking that you think my moral convictions are going to get a nasty shock when I discover just how callous the law really is? All the advice and information I've gotten has been really great, and I sincerely appreciate it. I'm almost certainly going to be studying law next February. It's a top school and I've been offered a full ride plus a living stipend, and the law holds enough interest for me as a layperson for me to be eager to at least give it a go. A lot my posts in this thread, and especially this one, have consisted mostly of me seemingly trying to tell you guys why my going to law school won't be the mistake some of you seem to think it is. I imagine you see this a lot and that it's quite frustrating. Some kid asks if they should go to law school, then bloodily justifies the affirmative decision they've already made in the face of healthy scepticism. But the only two real reasons why I shouldn't go to law school that have been outlined are that a) it will require a change in the way I think (which doesn't seem like a negative at all), and b) I may very well end up not wanting to practice law (which doesn't seem necessarily any more true for me than it does for anybody else and is no sort of surprise whatsoever). I just don't find myself identifying with the sensitive, starry-eyed philosopher that you think is going to find the law so painful a discipline to switch to. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
Cwapface, nobody in this thread is gong to come beat you with a herring if you go to law school. You don't need to be that defensive. That said, if you're in the rare position of being able to go to law school for free, maybe it's worth it, especially if the Aussie legal market isn't as poo poo as the US one is. Even in the US market it's possible to find a job if you work your rear end off and/or are a good networker. As far as law grades go, I can only speak to US grades, but law school grades are massively deflated compared to undergrad grades. I had fairly poo poo grades coming out of undergrad, by which I mean a B+ average. Even in my major I wasn't super pleased because I had just under an A- average. My law classes that are over 15 people have a mandatory 3.1-3.3 GPA mean (i.e. B to B+). That means our 50th percentile is probably somewhere near 3.3 (haven't checked recently).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
Sup Brislawgoons. I'm the retarded younger sister of you - I'm in Rockhampton doing external law through CQUniversity (it was the least effort to get into okay! No judgsies). But here's the thing. I don't know how to study. I have worked myself up into such a tizz about it, I have no idea what to do. This is my first semester. I've submitted two assignments ahead of time and got 100% on them but they were so easy it was almost insulting. I just feel really lost. I don't understand what I should be prioritising in terms of the work and readings and online lectures. I also find it incredibly hard to focus. I work full time (in government legal aid) and it's a relatively full on job. Even in high school I couldn't study. I got through on general intelligence and probably a lot of luck as well as a smart grade that dragged my OP up. I'm just really struggling at the moment and I'm a bit hysterical. I am doing ONE SUBJECT why is it so hard to concentrate? The content is not tough just the actual knowing what the hell to do in what order and how often etc is. I feel stuck. Help?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Cwapface, nobody in this thread is gong to come beat you with a herring if you go to law school. You don't need to be that defensive. quote:That said, if you're in the rare position of being able to go to law school for free, maybe it's worth it, especially if the Aussie legal market isn't as poo poo as the US one is. Even in the US market it's possible to find a job if you work your rear end off and/or are a good networker. quote:As far as law grades go, I can only speak to US grades, but law school grades are massively deflated compared to undergrad grades. I had fairly poo poo grades coming out of undergrad, by which I mean a B+ average. Even in my major I wasn't super pleased because I had just under an A- average. My law classes that are over 15 people have a mandatory 3.1-3.3 GPA mean (i.e. B to B+). That means our 50th percentile is probably somewhere near 3.3 (haven't checked recently). Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
Cwapface posted:
Ok that is helpful. I think I have you confused with someone else. In general, I would say that people coming from an analytic background are much much better suited for law than continental folks. You'll probably be fine. (I have custom titles and avatars turned off.) quote:I'm attracted to metaethics because I think it's one of the very few fields in philosophy where there are some real answers to be had about anything. Questions like, "What does moral speech mean?" And, "How do people think about right and wrong?" are questions we can attempt to answer without committing ourselves to pissing up an endless rope of further questions for all eternity (or until physicists answer our questions for us). We can do some real research (i.e. data gathering), define a few things by fiat in the way that best suits honest normative enquiry and go home. There's ample room for real pragmatism. I have never been attracted to those branches of philosophy that value questions more than they value attempts to answer questions. Except, perhaps, the study of logical paradoxes, but then what kind of a boring shithead doesn't like a good bit of vicious self-reference? I have no time whatsoever for that kind of Deleuzional creative writing that often masquerades as scholarly work. I'm probably just misreading your posts here, or (more likely) I've gotten you confused with someone else. quote:
No, not really your moral convictions - for one thing, law school confirms the moral convictions of both the hardest-core libertarian and socialist. That's part of the fun, I suppose. quote:I just don't find myself identifying with the sensitive, starry-eyed philosopher that you think is going to find the law so painful a discipline to switch to. Yeah I've probably got you confused with someone else. ALSO can we all point and laugh at Sulecrist for getting probated? Without using the term, "lol" and also making sure that we properly capitalize each "ha." Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Let's hear it again for crit theory discussions bringing in our parents. We had a good thing going but then some people just had to mess with the status quo. entris fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
entris posted:I'm surprised to hear that there are corporate boxes for Rammstein concerts. gvibes posted:Some venues (like the United Center in Chicago, I think), rents its boxes on an annual basis for all events held there. Patents, sports, etc. Yeah, it's this. Client's box. SHOCKINGLY no one wanted the tickets and I obviously jumped all over them. Omerta posted:Three asian girls watched anime for about two hours. I wanted to go talk to them but I was scared because they were so kawaii ~~ Dude, txt me next time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:does anyone have any criminal procedure: adjudication practice exams? more rules, less constitution please. I just sent some stuff your way. Not sure if it'll be of great substantive help, but try the noted supplement PDF. Also, mods, for future reference: this isn't a homework request. EDIT: What sigmachiev said below. VV tau fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
 questions:1. My friend is finishing his law degree this year (Civil law I guess? Wants to practice in Quebec), has never worked in any law-related capacity, done any kind of internships or summer work. How hosed is he? (I guess he does have the bar internship coming up, or whatever that's called) 2. How's the boat law market? Say I have four years of experience in boats, would that be an asset if I decided to go for a law degree?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:does anyone have any criminal procedure: adjudication practice exams? more rules, less constitution please. Sulecrist find me in chat. Respectfully, I think this probation needs to be addressed. Outline share is crucial to success in law school. Everyone does it, and everyone here does it. I'm confident that it rises to the level of an accepted (even welcome) norm in this thread. If this has to be categorized as "homework help" then I'd ask mods to consider an exception for us because it's been invaluable for me and many others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
sigmachiev posted:Respectfully, I think this probation needs to be addressed. Outline share is crucial to success in law school. Everyone does it, and everyone here does it. I'm confident that it rises to the level of an accepted (even welcome) norm in this thread. If this has to be categorized as "homework help" then I'd ask mods to consider an exception for us because it's been invaluable for me and many others. I don't know Sulecrist from Adam but this is realtalk. I want to be able to ask for outlines and supplements in this thread, especially come bartime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
entris posted:Last night marked the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. My wife complained, for the first time, that "all you care about is billing your hours." When I started law school I told my wife that if it ever gets bad enough, she's allowed a no-questions-asked veto and I'll leave private practice. She knows I'm serious, so she doesn't bother complaining about the small stuff. And if it ever got to the point where she'd actually call veto, it's time for a change anyways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
sigmachiev posted:Respectfully, I think this probation needs to be addressed. Outline share is crucial to success in law school. Everyone does it, and everyone here does it. I'm confident that it rises to the level of an accepted (even welcome) norm in this thread. If this has to be categorized as "homework help" then I'd ask mods to consider an exception for us because it's been invaluable for me and many others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
This past chain of events just caused me to let out a hearty guffaw. Handed in my final LCR (required writing class) appellate brief today. Feels good, even though it's kinda like, what I'm going to do with my life anyway, so hollow victory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
I think the rules should be relaxed for anyone within 1 week of a law school exam. Goatse in GBS? Oh wait, they have crimpro in 48 hours it's cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
Cwapface posted:Oh wow, another Brisgoon. Bear in mind that UQ law school (and most Australian law schools) are brutal in putting marks on a curve. I have never studied philosophy at UQ or any humanities or social sciences program, but have friends of mine that did arts/law and you should fully anticipate that you will get lower marks in your law degree than in arts. For one, there's the curve. Others in this thread can probably highlight what that means. The other thing is that a lot of legal study doesn't come down to conceptual or analytical brilliance but pure exam technique. I've had an exam weighted as much as 90% of the total subject weight, and Ive heard at UQ of exams up to 100%. I also have a friend who got first class honours in pol sci and is pursuing a Phd in pol sci who barely scraped a 5 GPA (and no honours at all) in law school. I'm just saying I wouldn't expect law school marks to come as easily as philosophy, that would be a major error. quote:But here's the thing. I don't know how to study. I have worked myself up into such a tizz about it, I have no idea what to do. This is my first semester. I've submitted two assignments ahead of time and got 100% on them but they were so easy it was almost insulting. I just feel really lost. I don't understand what I should be prioritising in terms of the work and readings and online lectures. My advice, from a QUT student. Firstly, tutes are your friend. Make sure you understand how they apply the law to the facts. I never used to do tute work but if you do the tute work consistently throughout the semester you'll know pretty well how to apply it in the exam. Second, make sure you make good notes about the lectures. Thirdly, do the textbook reading if you can. If you can do all this, there really isnt much else you can do other than do practice exams for the final exam. That would be my advice if I could give you anything. If you read cases as well there really isn't much else you can do. I barely read cases (only when necessary such as for assignments) just because there isn't enough time to read 10 cases a week. I mean really. I'm not a stellar student, but to be honest, I didn't give it 100% until I moved out of home and had huge work commitments etc. So much of study is wasted on school leavers who don't give a crap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
Well yeah I've been out of school for 10+ years now so I at least have some time management skills and earn my own way etc. Thanks for that. I will try to figure out if there's a tute. It's probably online. Sigh. That is great advice, thank you very much for taking the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
Sharks Below posted:But here's the thing. I don't know how to study. I have worked myself up into such a tizz about it, I have no idea what to do. This is my first semester. I've submitted two assignments ahead of time and got 100% on them but they were so easy it was almost insulting. I just feel really lost. I don't understand what I should be prioritising in terms of the work and readings and online lectures. How you personally should study needs to be figured out through trial and error. You need to know what works for you, and you can't be expected to know that yet if you're only two assignments into the only subject you've ever done at a tertiary level. Chill the gently caress out. You have to make mistakes to learn. If you've got an assignment and you're staring at a blank word document, stop asking yourself what you should do and just do what you can. Make a start somewhere, even if you don't think it's any good, and the rest will follow. Even the biggest assigned papers seem half as big once you've got 10% of it done. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Cwapface posted:Woah, calm down. How to study depends entirely on what you're studying and what kind of assessment. How to study for an exam is entirely different from "studying" in the sense of doing reading and completing an assignment in a timely fashion. You edited, but I didn't go to QUT because it was hard to get into and I was running out of time to apply. I figure if I can do well enough I might be able to transfer rather than missing out altogether. I didn't do AMAZINGLY on my OP so I probably wouldn't have gotten into QUT. But that's because I did no work at all in high school, lazy arse. I guess I am having trouble with routine. The stuff I have to do on a day in, day out, week in, week out basis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
entris posted:ALSO can we all point and laugh at Sulecrist for getting probated? Without using the term, "lol" and also making sure that we properly capitalize each "ha." People shouldn't throw stones from their mother-in-laws' glass houses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
Sharks Below posted:You edited, but I didn't go to QUT because it was hard to get into and I was running out of time to apply. I figure if I can do well enough I might be able to transfer rather than missing out altogether. I didn't do AMAZINGLY on my OP so I probably wouldn't have gotten into QUT. But that's because I did no work at all in high school, lazy arse. quote:I guess I am having trouble with routine. The stuff I have to do on a day in, day out, week in, week out basis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:People shouldn't throw stones from their mother-in-laws' glass houses. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
Cwapface posted:Yeah I edited because it seemed mean when I wasn't intending to be. Sorry. No judgies. I don't think it was a mean question at all.  I have time to study, it's not a work-life balance thing. It's a 'let things get behind so far that I don't know where to start now' thing 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 11:01
|
|
|
moana posted:It was reported as "lol" so I just probated for what I thought was the issue. Would have given sulechrist 1 day anyway for no caps and "lol" since it's just a slap on the wrist. If sharing tests is common and accepted, go right ahead, that's not the main reason I was probating. Is this auto reported or are people snitching in this thread? Snitches get stitches. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Is this auto reported or are people snitching in this thread? This guy got probated earlier in the thread for "lol" (and then got probated again for his CRT nonsense): http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3301274&pagenumber=507&perpage=40#post402400839 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
Social equality question: Where are the female lawyers? What do they practice? PI and estate litigation seem overwhelmingly male but that might be because I only meet name partners. This is partially the reason I think every lawyer in Dallas is an old white man in their 50s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Social equality question: BigLaw making the BigBucks. Edit: Also they have special groups for women lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Where are the female lawyers? What do they practice? My office is about 35% female. They are present in every practice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
tau posted:This guy got probated earlier in the thread for "lol" (and then got probated again for his CRT nonsense): http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3301274&pagenumber=507&perpage=40#post402400839 Yeah but that guy had already been banned three times for his behavior in D&D. CaptainScraps posted:Social equality question: In my department, which is T&E, we have 8 male partners and 1 female partner. We have 5 male associates, and 5 female associates. Our male partner who does T&E litigation has a female associate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
ulmont posted:My office is about 35% female. They are present in every practice. Majority female here, and the head of the office is female.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 15:44
|
|
