|
Halloween Jack posted:The gist I got from the OP and some other sources is that the shrinking legal market is not only an effect of the recession but a long-term trend which can be expected to continue. Why? What are the factors which are reducing the need for professional highly-educated lawyers? Arbitration and mediation? Cheap legal clinics? Increased ability for people to find (good) legal information themselves? The US justice system moving away from involved and expensive jury trials? Other stuff? It think that the above-mentioned factors are all valid, but I think there is a systemic change going on that affects all businesses, even lawyers. The change is this - information is suddenly cheap and easy to find. In years past, there were people who made their whole careers out of being the keepers of arcane information. They added no value, other than to know where certain information was. For an example, my high-school educated neighbor spent 20 years in a company as a "packaging buyer." From what I can surmise, his job entailed being paid $60,000 per year to sit at a desk and wait for his company to run low on packaging, at which point he would contact the three companies in China who made this kind of packaging, and order it from whomever made it the cheapest. The other 38 hours per week he did crossword puzzles. For the first 10 years of his career in this field, it made sense for the company to pay him $60,000 to line up their packaging, because who knew what guy at Guanging Packaging Inc. spoke enough English to process their order? Over the last few years, however, modern communications has made it possible to compress the whole world. Now a company can just get put a bid out on alibaba.com and get Pacific Rim companies tripping over themselves to make packaging. So my neighbor's information monopoly got torpedoed. And so did he, when the recession hit. The same pattern is playing out in law. Lawyers are the ultimate information brokers. The law used to be a gigantic mystery, and the common people would pay dearly for a guide. Now, scads of information is at one's fingertips, all of the time. It gets harder to see the value of a lawyer, and many lawyer information monopolies have blown up. So the practice of law changes and contracts, and the young ones and the old ones get hit the worst.
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I'm dubious of these claims of solo greatness only because "immigration law" doesn't sound like it nets one all the hookers and blow and phat cars and stacks of money that I've been led to believe a JD would hand me on a silver platter. Immigration law can be a very lucrative practice, often paid in cash. I know of a lawyer, younger than me, who is tied in with a certain ethnic populace and making gigantic sums of money. I can confirm that poofactory's story is not entirely implausible. Then again, I think ol' poo is a bit harsh on us poors. I, for one, have been in practice a long time, and don't have $50k cash assets in the bank. But maybe I am just a sucker or bad at this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:externships won't get you a clerkship or a job when you get out, working for the solo might Yep.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 00:37
|
|
|
Mookie posted:Whisky chat: I bought a bottle of Amrut "Fusion" yesterday. It's from a distillery in Bangalore (where all our jobs will soon be) and is made from both Scottish and Indian grown barley. poo poo was fantastic, almost custard-like malt sweetness and some sea salt. I would, but I am currently involved in a torrid love affair with Red Breast right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2010 01:48
|
|
|
Adar posted:hey guys I'm old here are some names of old things for old street cred I've got Led Zepplin and Pink Floyd records on real vinyl that I bought when I was a kid, I win.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2010 17:47
|
|
|
Gadamer posted:Thanks. I'm going to go ahead with the masters and from there apply to PhD programs, law schools, and jobs, and see which road seems best. Be sure to rack up lots of student law debt in the process. That makes everything easier.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 21:28
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Have you ever taken a bar exam, on weed? But have you ever stolen plans, space plans? Have you ever killed a man, with your mind? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYvHpVwIqYY
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
Leon Kowalski posted:Noodlebaby's experience is a lot easier to handle if one has a spouse with a decent salary. Obviously we all want large salaries, but $50,000 combined with -let's say- $70,000 isn't too shabby. Certainly enough to get by on even with kids. Do you want to buy a house? Do you want to travel? Do you or your wife want to take a few years off when the kids are young? Do you ever want to retire? Do you want to pay for your children's college education? If you want these things, do your math over. My wife and I make a lot more than the numbers you posted, and it is not enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 10:54
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Yeah, but do you live in Oklahoma, though. Leon Kowalski posted:You're either joking with us, or you live in Monte Carlo. I live a couple of states over from Oklahoma, still in the Midwest. bewbies posted:This is one of the most intensely amusing and ridiculous posts I've ever read, primarily because it is 100% serious.* Dead serious. 120k per year to a couple in their late 20's seems like a lot more than it is to a couple in their 40s. We did not have the benefit of IBR and will be paying student loans into our 50s. We have a child who will start college in 10 years. We have two more who will follow shortly behind. Current tuition estimates for 2020 suggest that I will need between $130-250k per child to pay for their education. So I need to save up several hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next ten years to meet that goal. I need more money. Retirement planners suggest saving 15% of your income if you expect that social security will be there when you retire. I don't, so I try to save more, and fail at it. I need more money. My wife took several years off of full time work when the babies were young, and it cost us a mint. I don't begrudge that money a bit, because it was important to us that we not outsource our newborns to a daycare. But different strokes for different folks. That was a family decision that put us into some home equity debt, but that is what it is. I would like to pay the debt off, so I need more money. The hit we take is on travel, house, and cars. We hardly go anywhere, and we both drive beaters. Our house is a normal suburban house, nothing flashy, in a relatively low COLA area. I would like to travel and have a nicer car, but I can't afford it. I need more money. bewbies posted:No, the tone of his post indicates all lawyers are entitled to these things. I never said that. I said that 120k a year is not enough to meet the goals I mentioned above. It has nothing to do with the source of the income.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
bewbies posted:No, you don't. Your definition of "getting by on" and mine are different. I don't count it as "getting by" unless I can retire someday and send my kids to school. I agree that you can put a roof over your head and food on the table for $120k. Is that all there is to life? bewbies posted:That said, I'll bet anything that you and maybe your wife are enjoying a very typical two-part problem that a lot of people in your position have. I am not whining, I am pretty lucky. Most of my classmates have not done as well as me. But I don't think it is outrageous, in a first world nation, after spending many years and tons of dollars on education, to earn an income that will allow you to pay for your childrens' schooling and retire someday. Certainly, that may be an unrealistic expectation for someone considering law school in the current market. But it was not an unrealistic expectation 15 years ago when I went to law school. As for taking time off to raise your kids, the majority of U.S. households were single-paycheck households up until the 1970's or so. Now, with two incomes we struggle to afford what our grandparent's generation did on one paycheck. Is that progress? bewbies posted:Second, you're probably absolutely horrible money managers. $120k a year should provide you with all of your "necessities" and plenty of disposable income left over. That it apparently is not means that you need to 1) develop realistic goals, and 2) figure out what kind of crap you're spending your money on. I don't think I am a horrible money manager, but what do I know? We budget, and save, and don't spend a ton. We eat out twice a month, max. Never go to movies. We made $10,000 off of our first house. Bought modest cars that we are driving into the ground. Every time Oprah has a budgeting special, we already do all of the things that her experts suggest. We did spend $80 at the county fair this month. Maybe that is the hole in the budget? I am crunched by two sets of educational loans, and a desire that my kids never have to pay that kind of debt. entris posted:Seriously Grundy, where did you get those education estimates? A couple years ago, my wife and I projected it from current tuitions and inflation rates. But here is a media piece with similar numbers http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SavingForCollege/Your5MinuteGuideToSavingForCollege.aspx Defleshed posted:If my wife and I started making $120K a year tomorrow, it would literally solve every problem we're dealing with right now and I would be loving singing in the streets. It sure would be nice to be putting away some money, have more than one car, and be able to eat out more than once a month. I used to feel that way too. Defleshed posted:I plan to help our kids where and when we can, but I will not be outright paying for their education, even if I were financially capable of doing so. In my experience that does nothing but create spoiled pieces of poo poo, and quite frankly I've learned the hard way that an advanced education isn't even something that is necessary to live a fulfilling life. And my experience is that having to borrow your rear end off to go to school limits your ability to take risks and follow any passions you might have. Some of my friends who flunked out of college and had nothing to lose (and no debt) went on to take risks and do some really amazing things. I have been saddled with the debt load for so long that I can't take any risks. I have had opportunities to leave the practice of law and do things that might, or might not, make me rich. The "might not" means that I can't pay my debts, and that means I can't feed my kids, and then bankruptcy. Can't do it. I don't want my kids to have the same pressure when they grow up. I don't want them to be so risk-averse. That doesn't mean that I won't encourage them to look at all options, including not going to college. But I want to be able to provide that if they want it. I don't think it is abnormal for a white collar professional in his 40's to have a decent suburban house, send his kids to school, and retire someday. If that is an outrageous sense of entitlement, then I accept the criticism. The only purpose of my post was to point out that, while $120k may feel like enough in your late 20's - it really isn't as much as you think, when you start factoring in retirement and your own kids' educational expenses.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
HooKars posted:Being able to afford tuition for three kids to go to the college of their choice hasn't been doable for the majority of the population for awhile so I think your definition of "getting by" is vastly different than most people's. I don't think its some new phenomenon - it definitely existed when I was in high school. If you feel that strongly about these goals, then after child #1 or child #2, you probably should have re-evaluated your financial situation and perhaps come to the conclusion that you possibly couldn't afford another child. I mean, what if the "white collar professional in his 40's" only wants to have a decent suburban house, send his kids to school, and retire someday... but he has ten children? You're right, I hosed up by having a third kid if I wanted to meet all my goals. But I wouldn't trade her for the world, or even an early retirement. There is nothing I can do about that now. I agree completely that a couple making $120k before having kids is in good shape. Start saving now, don't buy too much house, and watch your lifestyle. But we never were that couple. My income has close to tripled over my 12 year career as a lawyer, and my wife's doubled. But that gives you an idea of how little we made our first few years. If I'm not the oldest one in the thread, I am close to it. I am just giving you the perspective of the old guy. Factor it in to your planning, or label me a cranky old kook, it is up to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
NoodleBaby posted:Factor what into our planning? Factor what into your planning? Here's my message. If you are the pre-kids couple making $120,000 shortly after school, then my message is that $120k per year isn't as much as you think it is. It is a good start, but don't blow it. Don't make yourself house poor by buying a big fancy house, buy a Taurus instead of a Volvo, because you are going to need that money for other things that really sneak up on you as you get older. We avoided most of these mistakes, but our pre-IBR educational debt really, really makes an impact, as did the debt we took on when my wife wasn't working. (I realize that her staying home was stupid from a pure financial point of view, but I would support the same thing again because of the benefit to the family. But that's just me.) Saddle yourself with as little debt as possible so that you can take advantage of opportunities that may have some risk. Don't lock yourself into being a wage slave just to pay your debt service, if you can avoid it. It really sucks to be chained to your job just to pay your debt. You can't quit, you can't take a risk, you just show up, day after day, and work. Especially after you have been paying for years and years and have years and years to go. As for your $30k friends, I don't have any wisdom for them. If I am having trouble saving enough to retire, what chance do they have? Hopefully they have some family money coming to them as they age, because otherwise they'll be working until they drop. Or maybe the economy will collapse altogether, and they can thrive in a post-apocolyptic Thunderdome. I really didn't mean to come off as a whiner. I am in a much better spot than many. I am in a much better spot than many of my law school classmates. I have a comfortable life, and I went into the educational debt with my eyes open. I'm just trying to get people to consider the different sort of financial needs and pressures that become apparent as you age, and maybe plan for those pressures. In light of those, I stand my my original point- $120,000 per year is not as much as you think it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2010 02:13
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:Well I mean who doesn't enjoy a 7 day work week? It does get better, but never really gets "good" unless you have f-u money saved up. It takes a while to feel confident enough to say "no" to new work when you are overloaded. It takes awhile to get a handle on how much work a particular project will entail, so you know what you are taking on. It takes awhile to understand your own capabilities, so that you can relax on a Sunday and say to yourself "I can handle that on Monday." Once you get a handle on work balance, some of the anxiety drops away. However, there is always something you could be doing on your files, so you have nagging anxiety when you try to relax. Law firms are also usually pretty charged workplaces, full of drama and intrigue, so there is that stressor. Above the Law recently linked to an essay by a former biglaw associate where he describes the feeling of being an associate as constantly feeling like you were "in trouble," like when you did something bad as a kid. I totally agree with that assesment. But eventually, you get old enough that you are the dad or the mom in the analogous relationship, and different stressors take over, i.e. do I have enough work, why are my partners stealing my money, do I really have to fire this person, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2010 11:54
|
|
|
Big Debt, Small Law has been deleted. I guess that dude shouldn't have outed himself. http://bigdebtsmalllaw.wordpress.com/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
Way, way too expensive for the unemployed. Kid, stick to the staples in these tough times. Tullamore Dew and The Big Fellow (Michael Collins) will see you through the tough times.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2010 09:05
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:My doctor told me if I keep drinking the way I do I will 100% get cirrhosis by the age of 40 and be dead by 45. So now I only have beer and wine during the week and liquor only on weekends or at special events or when I can sneak it while my wife is in the bathroom. Oh and I open a secret tab at restaurants so the waiter can give me "sparkling water with lime" and I don't have to hear about it. The fun part is when you deny the drinking to your doctor but your liver enzymes are still elevated for unknown reasons so you have to go through a battery of tests looking for bizarre and esoteric causes for your liver dysfunction.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Why would you lie about drinking to your doctor? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Even when you're pretty straightforward with your doctor because you know exactly why your liver is poo poo, he'll still order a bunch of bullshit because that's how they roll. Would be nice to be like my clients when I get the bill and just say "I don't think you needed to do this. I'm not paying." Perhaps I overstated it. I'm not exactly lying to my doctor about drinking. I answer the questions truthfully, but don't exactly give the whole story. Example - Do you drink Alcohol? Yes. How often? Oh, whenever I get the feeling, you know.... (I get that feeling a lot...) How many drinks do you have when you drink? 2 -3 drinks. (Tumblers full of whiskey with no mixers....) TyChan posted:The likelihood of getting hit with a medical malpractice suit for not responding in every possible way according to patient input, even if you supposedly know in your gut that the patient is a liar/scoundrel/idiot is a lot higher than the likelihood of getting hit with a legal malpractice suit for not researching and putting forth every single potential argument you could theoretically make. Bullshit. I have done plaintiff's med mal on and off for my whole career and we take less than 1 in 30 potential cases. Everyone else in this community is similarly as selective. Don't believe the hype. CaptainScraps posted:Insurance companies are the loving scum of the earth. So settle with the excess carrier, giving them credit for the full $1 million of underyling limits. Then maintain the action with the primary carrier.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Also the other thing you've got with medical malpractice cases is someone who had something terrible happen to them, and they're looking for someone to blame - they don't really want to believe they're crippled for life because, well, poo poo happens. They're very motivated but not overly rational patients, and it's why I think medical malpractice suits that go to trial split ~ 66/33 in favor of the defendant (the normal split is 50/50 because the lawyers settle cases that aren't tossups). A doctor doesn't just want to not lose a malpractice suit, they don't want to be sued to begin with. A lawsuit is a pain in the rear end and needless stress. More like 80% - 20% in favor of the doctors. Med mal cases are so, so difficult to win. Insurers know it, and don't pay. The only time you get full settlement value is day of trial or mid-trial (or sometimes post trial, pre-verdict), after you have already spent all of the money for experts, etc. Despite Tychan's suggestion, at least in this area, there is no horde of starving lawyers ready to take meritless med mal cases. Nobody pays on those, and they are very expensive to bring. If you take a marginal med mal case, you'll just end up starvinger. The perception of abusive med mal lawsuits is, by and large, a hoax. Doctors have lots of money and organization and the sympathy of the public, and have shaped public perception. Nobody is perfect, and every doctor is going to make mistakes. Every doctor is going to make dozens and dozens of mistakes over a career. And every doctor gets sued once or twice over a career (or seven or eight times if the doc is really bad). Nobody wants to get sued. Nobody wants to be told they did a lovely job. So like everyone else who gets sued, the doctors get outraged when it happens. They bitch and bitch at cocktail parties, and to the AMA and other specialty organization, who bitch and bitch at politicians. They have the money and the power to bitch really loud. The insurers use this bitching as cover to push politicians for tort reform, which, while nominally directed at "frivolous" cases, cut off insurers' liability for the most catastrophic and egregious cases. The insurers laugh all of the way to the bank, having collected years of premiums for risk they will never have to pay on. Do the insurance rates go down? Never. http://www.protectconsumerjustice.org/insurance-companies-reap-benefits-of-medical-negligence-caps.html And often, the "tort reform" measures have the opposite of the intended effect- requiring lawyers to sue more doctors than they want. For example, one of the tort reform provisions in my state allows a defendant to request the jury to allocate liability to any entity that the defendant blames at trial for the plaintiff's loss. If the jury allocates loss to an entity that has not been sued, that portion of the loss is uncollectable. So what does a rational lawyer do? Sue everyone. Otherwise, you are committing malpractice. Various studies have estimated 100,000 - 225,000 deaths caused by medical errors per year nationwide. http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/mistakes/common.htm If you think there are that many med mal lawsuits filed per year, you are nuts. The vast majority of potential medical malpractice cases never get pursued. http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/National-Medical-Malpractice-Facts.cfm Don't believe the hype.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 23:43
|
|
|
nm posted:This isn't med mal, but in a lovely part of town here, there is a building who's only two tenants are a chiro and a PI attorney. Both with the same huge sign "been in an accident?." That is a different set of economics altogether. There is essentially no expert cost in those cases, because a savvy chiro won't charge much for his or her testimony. Chiros have to testify to get paid on letters of protection / chiro liens. The typical chiro whiplash case has a plaintiff that treated for a few months, racking up about $4,000 in chiro bills. The insurance company pays $6,000, the chiro takes two, the attorney two, and the client two. Put together a few dozen of those a year, and you can keep the lights on, but it is the very definition of shitlaw.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:
Oh, the mighty Erk & Jerk. Roll on.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 11:12
|
|
|
BigHead posted:I am officially the nation's leading Homesteader Law expert. Oddly enough, there's a whole subset of this poo poo. International Law Pandas move over, you've got a Goldpanner lawyer to compete against. I am accepting all back-woods hicks and other prospectors as clients, starting Aug 2011. Tell me more. I am this close to dropping out and staking a claim. How do I do it? Where?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2010 08:53
|
|
|
I find it very ironic when I check this thread and there is a legalzoom banner atop it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Eh? Why's that? Those folks trouble? They're taking our jerbs!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
I would like to reserve a spot as the doddering old professor emeritus. I will teach two classes a semester, admiralty law and personal tax, even though I have never practiced in either area. I don't even do my own taxes. Due to my age, I will add some gravitas to you whipper-snappers. I will wear old guy hats and drive a 1985 Chrysler New Yorker to campus. I will call students by wrong names all year long. I will not allow students to "pass" in class, because that is not how we did it when I was a student. Not only will laptops be banned, cell phones will be collected at the door. I will teach with lecture and socratic method only, no powerpoint or other fancy teaching aids. The books I assign will have last been printed in the mid 1960's.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 11:14
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Future Legal Rebel™ posting ITT If he is going to be a Legal Rebel,™ he also has to fork over the cash for a leather jacket and motorcycle.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2010 20:40
|
|
|
Stunt Rock posted:Shitlaw kind of owns. For real. I just took a new case from a cold call. Lady called me, and said she got food poisoning from chinese restaurant's shellfish dish. Barfing, swelling, overnight in the hospital. She had had the same dish from the same restaurant in the past, so it is not an allergic reaction. She told me that she was at work when the incident took place, and she called her daughter to come and drive her to the hospital. But the reaction hit so hard she had to have a co-worker drive her. Where does she work? The local adult caberet. Let's see - puking stripper with a daughter old enough to drive? I'LL TAKE THE CASE  It got even funnier when I sent one of our clerks to the restaurant to try to see who owned it. The local health department requires a certificate to be displayed with the owner's name on it. The restaurant workers caught the clerk trying to write down the name and covered the certificate with a tray, while yelling about the police and throwing my clerk out. I know I am going to lose money on the case, but sure will be fun.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
TheBestDeception posted:Question for those with experience: is it possible in a lawsuit/discovery to get a subpoena for information from a non-party, even if the non-party normally sells this information (say, under the FRCP), to avoid having to purchase it at market value? Assume there is no other source of the information and it is critical for the suit to proceed. Well, technically speaking it should be subject to subpoena. But I have seen parties subpoena experts that they can't afford to pay, and the courts in my area have not sanctioned that practice. I also was party to a suit where a party supoenaed a local government in an effort to avoid the cost of requesting records under my state's public record act. The local government objected to the subpoena, and the judge made the party pay the statutory copy rate. As you analyze it, I assume you would issue a subpoena duces tecum, requesting the subpoenaed party to bring the material to your office to copy. They will object, then you will file a Motion to Compel, and then the subpoenaed party will respond with their demand for payment. At the very least, even if you win, expect a pretty draconian protective order limiting your ability to pass on the information.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2010 01:14
|
|
|
TheBestDeception posted:Thanks. I had seen a case relating to the medical records, too, but that specifically turned on the statutory rates, so not really what I'm looking for. On the other side, there are the non-party subpoenas for ISP's and copyright violators, but that's not something typically sold. I was never clear on the court's authority to require the subpoenaing party to pay the normal rate. I recall thinking "but that's bullshit" at the time. Nevertheless, I would plan on having to pay.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 02:03
|
|
|
atlas of bugs posted:You recall correctly. At some point during that long leave of absence/homelessness, I realized that visions of myself as a gainfully employed lawyer were more like fantasy than of things to come. Maybe it was this thread. Maybe it was the statistics that seemed to flow from every possible crevice of industry analysis. Maybe it was my classmates failing to get jobs. Maybe it was my friends in the T20 and their classmates failing to get jobs. Maybe it was my friends in the T14 and their classmates failing to get jobs. Maybe it was seeing the estimates of the number of new lawyers that will graduate law school in the next 10 years against the estimated growth(?) in the field against the number of newly-accredited law schools. I have no doubt that I could have returned to school on my scholarship and lived comfortably for 2 more years while accumulating Cost of Living debt that I would never be able to pay off, but something about that plan just didn't seem morally, financially, or personally right, regardless of my current level of discomfort. Alright you snowflake, get back to law school. Why do you believe you are so special? Do you think you are TOO GOOD for soul-crushing debt? Why should you get a happy life and a bright future while the rest of us suffer?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 11:01
|
|
|
Lilosh posted:I have a question for Mookie, or anyone who actually has a lawyer job (So probably only him) I am a partner at a small firm, and we pay for an unlimited primary law (cases and codes) Westlaw plan. If we had to use books, we couldn't do our work. And it is sooooo expensive, every associate drat well use it. Now, there are still things that are in books and not in Westlaw (or prohibitively expensive in Westlaw) such as treatises and Amjur and such, so you should learn how to find that stuff, but by and large, unless you are doing total shitlaw, you will have access to Westlaw or Lexis. And for you weenies bitching about attendance requirements, back when I went to law school my TTT had a three-absence-then-fail policy. So quit whining and get out of bed and go to class.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
Lilosh posted:My contracts professor (who is apparently a "legend in the field" and can do whatever the gently caress he wants) has a "I take attendance at the beginning and if you miss two or more classes you fail the final and the class" policy. By 9 a.m., I have been up for at least 4 hours, made three breakfasts and lunches, washed and dressed three kids, delivered them to school/preschool, showered and dressed, got to the office, and worked for at least an hour. Quit whining.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2010 03:03
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:What's your wife doing? She commutes an hour into the Big City to work a Big Job. She leaves around 6 a.m. and gets home to pick up the kids around 5. BRB - I have two more PBJs to make.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2010 11:10
|
|
|
Walamor posted:
What do you think our motivation is? The motivation is pure, despite the tone of the message. It gets tiresome when snowflake after snowflake pops in and tries to explain why he or she is different and won't suffer the fate of many in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2010 12:55
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Fifth year "litigation" associate (patent though), never taken a deposition or appeared in court. I tried a jury trial all by myself three months after passing the bar. Small law woot woot.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 11:26
|
|
|
ADHDan posted:When the partner has delegated most of the background work, fact-gathering, etc. to the associate (which actually saves the client money), it makes sense for the associate to be present at key depositions. It's quality control. Of course it can be abused, but in many instances it's a pretty efficient division of labor. Um, litigation manager, I can beat the rates of whomever you are using in Ohio, I guarantee it. Please give me lots of work and make me rich. I am a really really good lawyer, I promise.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 11:31
|
|
|
Petey posted:I don't drink. I knew a lawyer who didn't drink once. The prevailing theory was that he didn't drink because "it would let the gay out." Not that there is anything wrong with that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Got my first client. Awesome. You have now found someone who will expect you to be on call 24 hours per day to rescue him or her from awful life choices. Someone who wants to fill you in, in painful and exacting detail, why his or her circumstances are *SO UNFAIR*, but under no circumstances wants to pay you for the time listening. Someone who will not pay your bills, but expect prompt and courteous service. And someone who will sue you at the drop of a hat, for slights real or imagined, when the representation is over. Enjoy!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2010 20:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:More detailed answer: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/221604/mortgage-firm-workers-could-be-on-hook Oh no, they are after The Beard: evilweasel posted:Don Lader, a Gorham attorney who runs Lader Legal Services and has taken on about 80 of Dargon's former clients, also said yesterday that he did not want to comment. The banking department alleges he committed 38 unlicensed loan originations and was an unlicensed branch manager and unlicensed mortgage broker.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2010 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:http://db.tt/bF1Lrl2 Responding "[w]rong bitches" to a legal argument isn't really an effective persuasive argument - it is really more gainsay or rejoinder.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2010 21:10
|
|