Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista

«‹›1550 »

HolySwissCheese: Mar 26, 2005

HiddenReplaced posted:

50k for a 50% chance is better than 30k for a 25% chance. GOD LAWYERS ARE SO BAD AT MATH LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOMGOMGOMGLOLOLOWTF.

I was more referring to the fact that every other school in the 20 to 30% range is at minimum 40k, as well as half of the schools in the 0% to 20% range. Obviously Yale, Penn, Harvard, etc. are totally worth it relative to UT.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 20:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 23:25

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

The Warszawa posted:

Law review: still the nexus of all the most racist poo poo I've seen in law school, and that's saying something.

Expound.

# ? Mar 3, 2013 00:18

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Green Crayons posted:

Expound.

So, you know how most law reviews are moving in the direction of a more inclusive, diverse editorship and board? We're moving in the opposite direction.

Not related to law review, but I like how we got a Chipotle here the same month the law school hired its first Latina professor. It's like the dean woke up in a cold sweat exclaiming, "Oh God, where is she going to eat?"

The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Mar 3, 2013

# ? Mar 3, 2013 06:05

Angry Grimace: Jul 29, 2010; ACTUALLY IT IS VERY GOOD THAT THE SHOW IS BAD AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T REALIZE WHY THAT'S GOOD IS AN IDIOT. JUST ENJOY THE BAD SHOW INSTEAD OF THINKING.

ragle posted:

I hope applicants really are dinged on C&F for extensive, immediate post-Bar online discussion- e.g. threads with 100s of posts about the most recent MBE

I actually don't recall any such warnings beyond the MBE section.

# ? Mar 3, 2013 06:13

HiddenReplaced: Apr 21, 2007; Yeah...
it's wanking time.

The Warszawa posted:

Not related to law review, but I like how we got a Chipotle here the same month the law school hired its first Latina professor. It's like the dean woke up in a cold sweat exclaiming, "Oh God, where is she going to eat?"

Funny because most likely true.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 00:22

Arcturas: Mar 30, 2011

I've been forced to look at some international stuff today, and am confused by Canadian shenanigans. Would anyone mind explaining the difference between of fences punishable on summary conviction and indictable offenses? Is it about the right to a jury trial, or are there other procedural protections in place for indictable offenses and not summary convictions? My gut reaction was that one was an ordinary criminal proceeding and the other along the lines of a fine, but that doesn't seem right.

Alternatively I guess I could google this.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 05:36

LeschNyhan: Sep 2, 2006

Crim isn't my thing, I haven't seriously looked at it since 1L and I guess some of the clinic stuff, so someone will probably correct me.

Summary offenses are heard by a judge sitting alone. Summary offenses usually carry a maximum fine of $5k or maximum 6 months imprisonment. Indictable offenses are more serious, and give the accused the option of choosing a jury or a judge sitting alone. Hybrid offenses are those where the Crown has the option of proceeding summarily or indictably.

I've heard say summary offenses are like misdemeanors and indictables are like felonies.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 06:37

Zarkov Cortez: Aug 18, 2007; Alas, our kitten class attack ships were no match for their mighty chairs

Arcturas posted:

I've been forced to look at some international stuff today, and am confused by Canadian shenanigans. Would anyone mind explaining the difference between of fences punishable on summary conviction and indictable offenses? Is it about the right to a jury trial, or are there other procedural protections in place for indictable offenses and not summary convictions? My gut reaction was that one was an ordinary criminal proceeding and the other along the lines of a fine, but that doesn't seem right.

Alternatively I guess I could google this.

http://canlii.ca/t/51zln#sec785

Canada has a lot of hybrid offences which are punishable by indictment or on summary conviction. For example, Theft Under $5000 - 334(b):

334. Except where otherwise provided by law, every one who commits theft
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, where the property stolen is a testamentary instrument or the value of what is stolen exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
where the value of what is stolen does not exceed five thousand dollars.

787. (1) Unless otherwise provided by law, everyone who is convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or to both.

So if the Crown elects to proceed by indictment the maximum custodial sentence is 2 years, or by summary conviction the maximum custodial sentence is 6 months.

LeschNyhan posted:

I've heard say summary offenses are like misdemeanors and indictables are like felonies.

This is what I've heard as well. There also aren't as many degrees for to charge for an offence.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 08:01

Lancelot: May 23, 2006; Fun Shoe

Some dude at work told me that in the some states there are LLCs which don't have separate legal personality. Does anyone know if that's right? I had a quick browse through a couple state LLC statutes but couldn't see anything which would indicate that would be the case.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 11:51

CmdrSmirnoff: Oct 27, 2005; happy happy happy happy happy happy happy happy happy

LeschNyhan posted:

Crim isn't my thing, I haven't seriously looked at it since 1L and I guess some of the clinic stuff, so someone will probably correct me.

Summary offenses are heard by a judge sitting alone. Summary offenses usually carry a maximum fine of $5k or maximum 6 months imprisonment. Indictable offenses are more serious, and give the accused the option of choosing a jury or a judge sitting alone. Hybrid offenses are those where the Crown has the option of proceeding summarily or indictably.

I've heard say summary offenses are like misdemeanors and indictables are like felonies.

The others are correct, but to add boring procedural poo poo:

- They're heard at different levels of the judiciary. Summary conviction offences are at the provincial court (like the Ontario Court of Justice). Indictables start at the provincial level until the preliminary hearing is over, and then get sent upstairs (ie Superior Court of Justice). Superior Court judges wear a sweet gold star, and the lawyers must appear robed. No wigs anymore. While adjourning for disclosure and all that in the early months, they're all in the exact same courts.
- Often the accused will elect to have a prelim, and when it rolls around either a) convert that prelim date to a trial, or b) skip the trial and plead out after prelim. All of this happens at the lower court level, though the Crown is still proceeding by indictment.
- The above is possible because the accused has a right to re-elect his mode of trial. By default most people charged with an indictable offence elect for a judge-and-jury-with-prelim trial and then see how it goes from there, since it's easier to get rid of a prelim and/or jury than it is to say you want one on day 1 of a 2-day trial.
- There are now "super-summary" offences punishable by 18 months in jail.
- The vast majority of offences are hybrid offences. For the purposes of statutory interpretation, a hybrid offence is treated as an indictable offence until the Crown formally elects. Which they often don't do until the trial starts, because they're jerks.
- A lawyer can appear as agent for the client on a summary conviction offence (except for a plea/trial). For an indictable you need to file a designation of counsel or the client risks getting a bench warrant.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 13:28

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Lancelot posted:

Some dude at work told me that in the some states there are LLCs which don't have separate legal personality. Does anyone know if that's right? I had a quick browse through a couple state LLC statutes but couldn't see anything which would indicate that would be the case.

That would sort of defeat the purpose of an LLC.

Most if not all states allow the corporate veil to be pierced where it's an obvious shell, though. Sone states are probably more inclined to allow this than others. Maybe that's what he meant?

# ? Mar 4, 2013 13:55

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

If the majority shareholders of a LLC are found by a jury to be indescribably boring, the LLC itself cannot escape its fate as a mundane legal entity.

The Warszawa posted:

So, you know how most law reviews are moving in the direction of a more inclusive, diverse editorship and board? We're moving in the opposite direction.

I don't understand. Like, they're actively saying "let's recruit more straight white males!" or something? Spill more specific details. This is the internet -- nobody on the LR will ever find it!

# ? Mar 4, 2013 14:23

SlyFrog: May 16, 2007; What? One name? Who are you, Seal?

Lancelot posted:

Some dude at work told me that in the some states there are LLCs which don't have separate legal personality. Does anyone know if that's right? I had a quick browse through a couple state LLC statutes but couldn't see anything which would indicate that would be the case.

That's definitely right. Assuming Reagan is still president.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 14:47

10-8: Oct 2, 2003; Level 14 Bureaucrat

Lancelot posted:

Some dude at work told me that in the some states there are LLCs which don't have separate legal personality. Does anyone know if that's right? I had a quick browse through a couple state LLC statutes but couldn't see anything which would indicate that would be the case.

Maybe he meant for federal tax purposes? Single-member LLCs are pretty much disregarded by the IRS.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 15:08

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

SlyFrog posted:

That's definitely right. Assuming Reagan is still president.

Ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm welcome to noted legal personality SlyFrog Esq.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 15:12

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; Look at me. Look at me.

I am the captain now.

Green Crayons posted:

I don't understand. Like, they're actively saying "let's recruit more straight white males!" or something? Spill more specific details. This is the internet -- nobody on the LR will ever find it!

More that "efforts to increase diversity have been so thoroughly resisted from within that the board positions are now exclusively white and male, and anything that might actually produce even short-term gains is not even on the table because it's too 'controversial' or 'volatile.'" You don't really have to actively recruit straight white males for anything in law school to keep the "prestige" things overwhelmingly and disproportionately white and male.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 15:18

Arcturas: Mar 30, 2011

Thanks for the information on Canadian criminal law, that's really handy and exactly what I was looking for. I'm dealing with a hybrid offense statute that provides for up to six months jail time or a $50,000 fine for a summary conviction, or a $100,000 fine for indictment (but apparently no jail time). Fines are also roughly double for corporate violators ($100k summary, $250k indictment).

# ? Mar 4, 2013 16:26

Direwolf: Aug 16, 2004; Fwar

The Warszawa posted:

More that "efforts to increase diversity have been so thoroughly resisted from within that the board positions are now exclusively white and male, and anything that might actually produce even short-term gains is not even on the table because it's too 'controversial' or 'volatile.'" You don't really have to actively recruit straight white males for anything in law school to keep the "prestige" things overwhelmingly and disproportionately white and male.

True at Northwestern too ^_^

# ? Mar 4, 2013 16:36

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

The Warszawa posted:

More that "efforts to increase diversity have been so thoroughly resisted from within that the board positions are now exclusively white and male, and anything that might actually produce even short-term gains is not even on the table because it's too 'controversial' or 'volatile.'" You don't really have to actively recruit straight white males for anything in law school to keep the "prestige" things overwhelmingly and disproportionately white and male.

I'm a bit lost as to what these rejected efforts to increase diversity could be. Is it simply something along the lines of rejecting the mere consideration of "Candidate X might have a unique experience to bring to the table because of her <minority characteristic> background"? Or some more extensive diversity efforts?

I'm sure each LR's selection process for the following Board is different, but I'm having a hard time conceptualizing what form a uniform/more stringent effort to increase diversity would look like. So, for clarification, I'm asking from a place of actually wanting to know, not attempting to challenge the notion of diversity efforts couched in passive aggressive rhetoric.

Green Crayons fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Mar 4, 2013

# ? Mar 4, 2013 16:48

Zarkov Cortez: Aug 18, 2007; Alas, our kitten class attack ships were no match for their mighty chairs

Arcturas posted:

Thanks for the information on Canadian criminal law, that's really handy and exactly what I was looking for. I'm dealing with a hybrid offense statute that provides for up to six months jail time or a $50,000 fine for a summary conviction, or a $100,000 fine for indictment (but apparently no jail time). Fines are also roughly double for corporate violators ($100k summary, $250k indictment).

What offence?

# ? Mar 4, 2013 17:04

SlyFrog: May 16, 2007; What? One name? Who are you, Seal?

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm welcome to noted legal personality SlyFrog Esq.

Thank you, thank you. Enjoy the buffet, I'll be here all week.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 17:12

Arcturas: Mar 30, 2011

Zarkov Cortez posted:

What offence?

The Migratory Birds Convention Act. I'm really dealing with its US counterpart, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but I need to know just enough about the Canadian law to answer a quick question.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 19:13

Horseshoe theory: Mar 7, 2005

10-8 posted:

Maybe he meant for federal tax purposes? Single-member LLCs are pretty much disregarded by the IRS.

That's only assuming you don't "Check the box" to make it taxable as a corporation for tax purposes (IE: assuming you do nothing in terms of filing Form 8832).

# ? Mar 4, 2013 19:41

Bro Enlai: Nov 9, 2008

This list of the "21 Most Impressive Students At Harvard Law School" is fatally flawed; clearly they haven't seen my level 80 night elf ranger build. Also it's incredibly patronizing. But mostly the first thing.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 19:49

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Bro Enlai posted:

This list of the "21 Most Impressive Students At Harvard Law School" is fatally flawed; clearly they haven't seen my level 80 night elf ranger build. Also it's incredibly patronizing. But mostly the first thing.

quote:

David Dorfman is a former child actor and legal prodigy who was accepted to Harvard Law School at age 18.

Harvard Law School must be insufferable.

quote:

Jermaine McMihelk overcame homelessness to attend Harvard Law School.

I like how this one implies that he overcame homelessness only to go to HLS -- otherwise, he would've said gently caress it to life. Also implies that he's going back to homelessness post-HLS, which would help explain the 8% unemployed at graduation.

Green Crayons fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Mar 4, 2013

# ? Mar 4, 2013 19:57

HiddenReplaced: Apr 21, 2007; Yeah...
it's wanking time.

Bro Enlai posted:

This list of the "21 Most Impressive Students At Harvard Law School" is fatally flawed; clearly they haven't seen my level 80 night elf ranger build. Also it's incredibly patronizing. But mostly the first thing.

The ginger looks like a skank. Confirm/Deny?

# ? Mar 4, 2013 20:47

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

HiddenReplaced posted:

The ginger looks like a skank. Confirm/Deny?

Since she's interested in reproductive rights, Rush Limbaugh probably thinks so.

Also,

"This list of the 21 Most Impressive Students At Harvard Law School posted:

she won the award for Best Oralist

(emphasis in original)

# ? Mar 4, 2013 20:59

Direwolf posted:

True at Northwestern too ^_^

Northwestern's Law Review board is pretty good though. The new editor-in-chief is an Asian female and the rest of the board is fairly diverse too. From glancing at emails announcing other journals' boards when they first came out, they don't seem bad either from what I remember.

Edit: And yes, there are black and latino people with high positions on these boards too. Also disabled people.

MoFauxHawk fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Mar 4, 2013

# ? Mar 4, 2013 21:29

Linguica: Jul 13, 2000; You're already dead

LOL our own Petey got linked by George Takei for his dumb nerd poo poo https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/posts/382728005158433

# ? Mar 4, 2013 22:02

Bro Enlai: Nov 9, 2008

HiddenReplaced posted:

The ginger looks like a skank. Confirm/Deny?

If I knew other people in law school, I wouldn't be posting in this thread

# ? Mar 4, 2013 22:38

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Literally three people on that list will get jobs.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 22:48

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Linguica posted:

LOL our own Petey got linked by George Takei for his dumb nerd poo poo https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/posts/382728005158433

This is a way better honor than anyone on that stupid Harvard list will ever come close to sniffing. Petey you did well not to go to law school.

# ? Mar 4, 2013 23:43

Phil Moscowitz posted:

This is a way better honor than anyone on that stupid Harvard list will ever come close to sniffing. Petey you did well not to go to law school.

Yeah, that's really pretty awesome. Tens of thousands of likes for that post.

# ? Mar 5, 2013 01:21

zzyzx: Mar 2, 2004

The article itself. :awesomelon:

Petey posted:

Today, during a heated discussion on the sequester, a frustrated President Barack Obama made the following statement to the press corps as they challenged him to show more leadership in negotiations:

"I'm presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don�t take it means that I should somehow, you know, do a Jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what�s right."

Various commentators immediately criticized the President for, as they say, crossing the streams. Jim Kuhnhenn of the Associated Press wrote that Obama "�mixed his sci-fi metaphors�The Jedi reference comes from Star Wars, and the mind meld from Star Trek." Xeni Jardin of BoingBoing wrote that the President "tried to drop a gratuitous nerd culture reference�and blew it." #ObamaSciFiQuotes began trending on Twitter, mocking Obama for his apparent misstep.

Out of a nascent sense of patriotism, and animated by the spirit of my friend Matt Stempeck's LazyTruth, I now reluctantly but firmly step forward in defense of my President against these reckless and ill-founded accusations. Obama did not, as Jardin claimed, "blow" his reference: he was more correct than any of his critics could possibly imagine.

First, as a friend pointed out, there is a Jedi Meld well established within the admittedly capacious but nonetheless official contours of the Star Wars: Expanded Universe. In Outbound Flight, a novel written by the prolific Timothy Zahn, the Jedi Master Jorus C'baoth instructs a young Anakin Skywalker that the Jedi Meld "permits a group of Jedi to connect their minds so closely as to act as a single person." (emphasis added)

According to Wookieepedia, the Jedi Meld was deployed by dozens of Jedi, including (but not limited to) Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, Luke Skywalker, Mara Jade Skywalker, and Anakin, Jacen, and Jaina Solo, across dozens officially-licensed books. Indeed, its recovery and redevelopment, principally by the Solo children, was an important turning point in the Yuuzhan Vong War as chronicled exhaustively in the New Jedi Order series.

But not only is the Jedi Meld, through general acceptance and uncontroversial use, authoritatively established within the official Star Wars universe: it was the right reference for Obama to make.

Jedi Mind Tricks, according to Wookieepedia, "refer to a spectrum of Force powers which influenced the thoughts of sentient creatures"; the Vulcan Mind-meld, according to Wikipedia, "is a technique for sharing thoughts, experiences, memories, and knowledge with another individual."

Both are powerful methods of influence, to be sure, but neither fully captures what Obama was suggesting when he said he could not "do a Jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what�s right." (emphasis added) Rather, the most appropriate method for Obama would be a Jedi Meld. For it is the Jedi Meld, rather than its more familiar cousins, which would allow Obama to be as effective as he suggested he would like to be, and arguably the only one which allows him to be effective in the particular way he describes.

This argument is best understood through the framework of actor-network theory as developed by Bruno Latour. ANT is a huge box to unpack in a blog post, so for now let me simply say this: for Latour - and apparently Obama - the world is composed of actors. Progress towards a particular goal is made by convincing ("enrolling") other actors to be "allies" which, once linked to and by you, bend their collective will towards your goal. As Clay Spinuzzi writes, "An actor-network is composed of many entities or actants that enter into an alliance to satisfy their diverse aims. Each actant enrolls the others, that is, finds ways to convince the others to support its own aims."

Now, consider the following passages excerpted from Walter Jon Williams' Ylesia:

Some have commented that these passages suggest that the Jedi Meld is used for communication, not convincing. But through the lens of Latour we see that the convincing comes before and during the communication. A Jedi Meld cannot take place before/until other Jedi have been convinced to enter into it, and thereafter it serves as a continuing site of contestation and cooptation. As I wrote in the comments below, it is C'baoth's description of the Jedi Meld - "allows them to act as if they were a single person" - which implies, indeed necessitates influence: an assembled actor-network only holds together if all have been convinced to act as one. The linkages are made through not only the mind-meld but the other ontological actors which keep the linkages active from moment to moment.

When Obama writes that he "can't do a Jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what�s right," then, what we should understand him to be saying is that he cannot simply enroll these actively hostile allies at a distance and convince them to move towards his goal any more easily than a scientist can straightforwardly enroll gravity to make him fly. Like obstinately hot coals beneath the feet of a soothsayer, the Republicans are, viz Obama, black boxes which remain unopenable and unenrollable. The Jedi Meld method fails, and with it the network of possibility, not only for lack of midi-chlorians, but for a lack of available allies.

Far from being a mistake, mixed metaphor, or slip-of-the-tongue, Obama's extemporaneous invocation of "Jedi Meld" was precisely on point, simultaneously displaying his nuanced and considerable command of the finer details of both actor-network theory and the Star Wars: Expanded Universe. Instead of mocking him from the comfort of our replica X-wing armchairs, as nerds and citizens we should be honored and awed by a commander-in-chief who offhandedly deploys such concepts in the public discourse.

Edit 3/2/2013, 10AM ET: At the request of some in the comments I have tried (perhaps successfully) to further articulate the Latour connection and its significance. My apologies if it was (and/or remains) obscure: I've been distracted writing my thesis. In any case, if you're interested in learning more about actor-network theory, you should read Latour and his interlocuters. If you are looking for a good place to start, I would personally recommend beginning with (at least) the first two chapters of Graham Harman's Prince of Networks before moving on to Latour's Reassembling the Social. Careful, though: once you see ANT, you can't unsee it.

# ? Mar 5, 2013 02:07

zzyzx: Mar 2, 2004

I think my favorite part is that it has like 20,000 likes and the rest of the posts on the blog have 6 or so.

# ? Mar 5, 2013 02:09

Zarkov Cortez: Aug 18, 2007; Alas, our kitten class attack ships were no match for their mighty chairs

Bro Enlai posted:

This list of the "21 Most Impressive Students At Harvard Law School" is fatally flawed; clearly they haven't seen my level 80 night elf ranger build. Also it's incredibly patronizing. But mostly the first thing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/most...n-the-us-navy-5
JAG, also

quote:

Cox is an idealist and hopes to use law to change the world for the better.

# ? Mar 5, 2013 03:55

Mons Hubris: Aug 29, 2004; fanci flup

I apparently went to high school with the first girl on that list, but I don't remember her at all. SO HOW FUCKIN' IMPRESSIVE CAN SHE BE

Mons Hubris fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Mar 5, 2013

# ? Mar 5, 2013 04:41

Solid Lizzie: Sep 26, 2011; Forbes or GTFO

You can tell whoever compiled that list never ran a day in his or her life because, while running a marathon is nothing to shake your head at, "running a marathon + high hopes of doing something nice for other people" really doesn't make you a super impressive student anywhere.

# ? Mar 5, 2013 05:09

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Congrats Petey, you are philosopher king of the nerds.

# ? Mar 5, 2013 05:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 23:25

It's too bad the former lawgoon who was on and is again on Survivor recently graduated from HLS or he might be on that list too.

# ? Mar 5, 2013 05:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista

«‹›1550 »