|
CaptainScraps posted:Social equality question: PD's office: trial: 45% women mental health: 50% juvenile: 60% women civil: 100% women appeals: 0% women support: (secretaries, paralegals) 100% women Chief: male Deputy: female overall (attorneys): 52% women DA's office: trial: 45% women juvenile: 50% civil: 0% women support: 98% women leadership: 0% women overall (attorneys): 42% women *except for trial divisions and support staff, sample sizes are only 3-8 people. joat mon fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Apr 24, 2012 |
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Social equality question:
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
We have a surprising amount of female attorneys for a patent prosecution mill. And most of them are doing EE/CS stuff too instead of bio/chem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Dude, txt me next time. Well, since application time is pretty much done, here is my report for the year.  Annual report of people I know going to lawl school next year or considered but decided not to Very good annual results. (1) Good friend of mine to Penn with a partial scholarship. Has a decent sized trust fund and his grandfather was one of the most successful attorneys in the state. Ever. I really want to start a firm with me a couple years from now. A+ (2) Not going. Study try-hard Asian with a 180 on the LSATs, but not great gpa from an invy league after his parents said he could either get a med degree or never stay at home again. Borderline PTSD. Not going and teaching elite-level test prep (dude has gotten a perfect score on every standardized test he's taken) while he finds himself. A (3-6) Going to various fourth tier schools in FL. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WHY DIDN'T YOU LISTEN TO ME? (4-??) I probably had "the talk" with like 20 of my parent's children who were interested in law school. Of everyone I talked to, nobody that I see regularly is going. All in all, proud of my performance this year. The most interesting thing I noticed is that the schools getting hit hardest by all this reporting are the 50-100 schools because, at that point, people are smart enough to see the risks in their decision. 4th tiers aren't really having a problem since (no offense) a lot of their students are too stupid to realize how bad of an idea it is. Dunning-Kruger at work. gret posted:We have a surprising amount of female attorneys for a patent prosecution mill. And most of them are doing EE/CS stuff too instead of bio/chem. There are a TON of younger female partners at my firm, but zero older ones (obviously). I think the skewness in partner gender will move pretty markedly towards equality in the next 10-15 years and I hope the same thing will happen with minority partners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Social equality question: Public interest law. I've been outnumbered in every NGO, non-profit, and legal aid thing I've worked for or interacted with, including the human rights clinic I'm in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
entris posted:Hahahaha this is misogynistic as gently caress. Not at all. If the attorney were a woman, you could easily replace "kitchen appliances" with "power tools."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
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. It was clearly ironic, especially given the context of him acknowledging that it is quite stupid to leave exam prep until two days before. The lack of caps and the 'lol' were pretty obviously a nod to that. Modding on these forums is really poo poo. The rules might say no to 'lol' but Jesus Christ learn to understand nuance and context. I can't believe I'm being autistic enough to dissect and moan about his post in this way but it shouldn't need pointing out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
And because I'll probably get probated or banned for saying that, I would like to tell whoever does the deed that you can suck my dick. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Sounds like you could use a Forums Lawyer. I work on contingency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Sounds like you could use a Forums Lawyer. I work on contingency. Don't hire him, he runs a loving hack shop. I'll do it for contingency and a $50K expense retainer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
Last day of law school classes tomorrow. That. Is. All. Also, don't go, no loving jobs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
Phil, I really appreciate your state giving my state (FL) a run for most retarded. On the other hand, Dolphins.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:And because I'll probably get probated or banned for saying that, I would like to tell whoever does the deed that you can suck my dick. A fitting end for the user who initially brought the mods down upon our holy thread when he was reported during the crit discussion weeks ago. With him gone, perhaps now the mods will cease to visit their wrath upon us. In other news, apparently I was wrong about the uselessness of law reviews: An Empirical Assessment of the Supreme Court’s Use of Legal Scholarship quote:This article provides the first report, as far as we can determine, of evidence that the Supreme Court not only often uses legal scholarship, it also disproportionately uses scholarship when cases are either more important or more difficult to decide. It thus presents results strongly counterintuitive to claims that scholarship is useless or irrelevant to judges and practitioners. If I didn't have to bill a bunch of hours, I'd totally download and read the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:It was clearly ironic, especially given the context of him acknowledging that it is quite stupid to leave exam prep until two days before. The lack of caps and the 'lol' were pretty obviously a nod to that. lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Sounds like you could use a Forums Lawyer. I work on contingency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
Heads up, my unemployed lawgoon bros: Google has a lot of legal jobs posted on their jobs website. http://www.google.com/about/jobs/search/#q=&team=legal-public-policy
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
tau posted:Heads up, my unemployed lawgoon bros: Google has a lot of legal jobs posted on their jobs website. http://www.google.com/about/jobs/search/#q=&team=legal-public-policy
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Omerta posted:(4-??) I probably had "the talk" with like 20 of my parent's children who were interested in law school. Of everyone I talked to, nobody that I see regularly is going. Whoa!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Phil, I really appreciate your state giving my state (FL) a run for most retarded. I don't get it? E. is this a reference to the Saints? Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Apr 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
tau posted:Heads up, my unemployed lawgoon bros: Google has a lot of legal jobs posted on their jobs website. http://www.google.com/about/jobs/search/#q=&team=legal-public-policy I'm pretty good at googling do you think they will hire me
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
There are a fair amount of both women judges and women clerks in my state judiciary. On the other hand that's where I've heard the worst misogynist bullshit too sooo....
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Social equality question:
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
tau posted:Heads up, my unemployed lawgoon bros: Google has a lot of legal jobs posted on their jobs website. http://www.google.com/about/jobs/search/#q=&team=legal-public-policy Why doesn't google need a criminal defense attorney?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
The few female partners we have are in Trusts and Estates. Our associates are close to a 50/50 split, though, and they're pretty evenly distributed among practice areas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
nm posted:Why doesn't google need a criminal defense attorney? Give it time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
nm posted:Why doesn't google need a criminal defense attorney? I give up. Why doesn't google need a criminal defense attorney?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I don't get it? Yeah, but that was a weird way of typing that out. diospadre posted:Whoa! Oops, I meant to say parents' friends' children. Just kidding, I'm a Duggar. Sorry everyone, I can't communicate because my brain is fried from reviewing Secured Transactions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
nm posted:Why doesn't google need a criminal defense attorney? I interviewed with the Department of Justice the other day. One of their questions was what would I do if I got a call from a ministerial office directing me to destroy documents from a file I was working on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I interviewed with the Department of Justice the other day. One of their questions was what would I do if I got a call from a ministerial office directing me to destroy documents from a file I was working on. What's the correct answer
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:What's the correct answer Zarkov Cortez is from Canada, so it's not as obvious a trick question as it would be in the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:What's the correct answer I went with find out more information, say no and contact my supervising attorney (nothing was given regarding the content of the file). joat mon posted:Zarkov Cortez is from Canada, so it's not as obvious a trick question as it would be in the U.S. Now I am curious. Another question was what would I do if I was with a senior attorney who got drunk and started talking about private negotiations from a file with former classmates. Zarkov Cortez fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Apr 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I went with find out more information, say no and contact my supervising attorney (nothing was given regarding the content of the file). Your interviews sound incredibly difficult. If you're present at a drunken conversation between seniors, then presumably you're at least mildly intoxicated (Archelaus says it is a disgrace for the sober to be around the drunk), and intimate conversations between important gentlemen are arguably outside the scope of formal considerations. Yet one isn't likely to be familiar with the interviewer, and americans are just odd people, so you can't know whether the yank wants to hear something else about how you'd ruin the night by whisking away the senior. Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Apr 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Your interviews sound incredibly difficult. If you're present at a drunken conversation between seniors, then presumably you're at least mildly intoxicated (Archelaus says it is a disgrace for the sober to be around the drunk), and intimate conversations between important gentlemen are arguably outside the scope of formal considerations. Yet one isn't likely to be familiar with the interviewer, and americans are just odd people, so you can't know whether the yank wants to hear something else about how you'd ruin the night by whisking away the senior. Afterward, re: destroy documents, I was thinking about the presidential pardon scene from Clear and Present Danger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Say you destroyed them and then take them home and if it turns out you were supposed to destroy them then good and if you weren't then it's all good 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
HolySwissCheese posted:Say you destroyed them and then take them home and if it turns out you were supposed to destroy them then good and if you weren't then it's all good hahaha I like this. Thinking like a lawyer™
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
Other interesting things so far included a legal aid lawyer making fun of me for driving a civic and my friend being asked by a private bar defense attorney if they liked working with poor people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:Now I am curious. And there's always the prosecutorial misconduct pyramid: 66% of prosecutorial misconduct is in a grey area where reasonable minds can differ whether it's illegal or 'merely' pushing the boundaries of illegal. 30% of prosecutorial misconduct will be ignored by the courts. 3% of prosecutorial misconduct will be error, but harmless .8% of prosecutorial misconduct will result in some relief .1% of prosecutorial misconduct is egregious enough for the appellate court to -gasp- name the prosecutor in its opinion. .07% of prosecutorial misconduct will result in a case with the bar association .02% of prosecutorial misconduct will result in a negative finding by the bar .007% of prosecutorial misconduct will result in termination .003% of prosecutorial misconduct will result in criminal charges. 0% of prosecutorial misconduct will result in civil recompense. Imbler, Connick If you are DOJ, multiply all but the first slice of the pyramid by .01
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
I looked into the USPTO; there appears to be pretty good demand for patent examiners in my field. Does anyone have experience or have a friend with experience of starting at the USPTO then making the jump to either a private firm>law school or to law school?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
AgentSythe posted:I looked into the USPTO; there appears to be pretty good demand for patent examiners in my field. Does anyone have experience or have a friend with experience of starting at the USPTO then making the jump to either a private firm>law school or to law school?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I interviewed with the Department of Justice the other day. One of their questions was what would I do if I got a call from a ministerial office directing me to destroy documents from a file I was working on. Man. DoJ loves to recycle questions, don't they?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 08:02
|
|