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

«‹›13 »

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Lilosh posted:

Cornell grades posted today!

Two A, two A-, and the requisite B+ in our LRW class (which pretty much everyone gets a B+ in).

Looking at the cutoffs from the previous years, this should be enough to hit the top 10%. I'm noting this moment, because I imagine this might be the highlight of law school.

Congrats! In sadder news, it is a beautiful Saturday in Atlanta and I am reading about administrative law.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2011 18:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 14:20

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

The Warszawa posted:

I've just been saying that since we haven't finished exams, it's not available yet. Joke's on them, I won't get my (non) grades til like April.

Yeah, but you get cold called with job offers unlike the rest of us peons. I feel like I may be going the way of Adar. I deposited some money in full tilt since I'm snowed in and I've had a pretty good run so far.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2011 02:01

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

The Warszawa posted:

Apparently I don't get grades until April. Makes it awkward when jobs ask for a transcript.

It's more awkward for people like me that fall into the category of "people not going to Yale." Fortunately, I have a job already but I would still really like to know my grades besides legal writing.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2011 14:05

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Starpluck posted:

I came into this thread expecting some useful advice and encouragement to pursue my dream of becoming a lawyer. I do want to become one despite this thread pretty much being a �Why you shouldn�t be lawyer� thread and it�s stressing me out.

I'll guess you want international human rights law from the Al Aqsa tag

# ¿ Jan 23, 2011 17:33

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

[quote="Green Crayons"]
.

Omerta fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Aug 17, 2011

# ¿ Jan 23, 2011 22:26

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Petey posted:

Read it and weep (for your life, for your soul, and most of all, for your writing)

That was awesome and I just noticed the date.

On another note, I have to put together a hypo for a fake hearing on state secrets privilege. It isn't for a grade or associated with a class. If any of y'all can think of a sweet hypo to debate about, feel free to post it here.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2011 01:26

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

nm posted:

No kidding.
Law texts should be: "Look up these cases on westlaw, on and you can skip pp. X-Y."
If law textbooks actually explained something (like say, hornbooks), that would be different, but they're just case after case after case.

My torts professor helped write/edit the Prosser/Wade torts book and it's the only really helpful textbook I've come across. Maybe because torts lends itself to the particular strategy they used, but it was really useful.

All the concepts had like 1-3 principal cases that were like 1.5-2 pages then 5 pages of 1 sentence case summaries of different iterations of the same issue grouped by the general situation that it occurred in: parent/gov't agency/employer and so on.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2011 18:35

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Omerta fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Aug 17, 2011

# ¿ Jan 28, 2011 00:01

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Petey posted:

digital short subject / screenshot + youtube ad combo

Great, so online law schools are only behind penis enlargement and 1 QUICK WEIRD TIP FOR LOSING BELLY FAT FOR USE ACAI BERRY ads in terms of volume.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2011 14:54

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Solomon Grundy posted:

If you find me a bespoke tailor who guarantees that I will like the way I look, I will consider saving up my lunch money.

Here's my list: All of them. At least get up to made to measure instead of off the rack.

Buy nice suits, it ends up working out to the same cost over time and you won't look like poo poo. It doesn't need to be a Kiton... just not Men's Wearhouse for the love of god.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2011 05:14

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Solomon Grundy posted:

(That was a joke about the Men's Wearhouse slogan: "You are going to like the way you look, I guarantee it.")

It is not the same cost over time, not even close. It is 1/5 the cost, at least. If you gently caress up once with a bespoke suit, it is just as ruined as a Men's Wearhouse horsehair special. Having barfing kids and a very hairy dog around makes good suits a bad investment.

I have no use for a bespoke suit. If I were to try a case in a bespoke suit in my depressed corner of the Midwest, I would totally alienate myself from Joe Sixpack. I would be "putting on airs" and tagged for it.

I was sitting lunch during a trial in my third or fourth year, and listened to the jurors speculate on the cost of the defense lawyer's shoes for about 15 minutes. They hated on the dude and I got my best plaintiff's verdict in my career. I learned from it, and keep a pair of holey scuffed up broughams for trials.

I wear my shittiest, baggiest suits for trial, which are not hard to find at the Wearhouse. I practice in some courthouses with hitching posts for horses, and others with parking meters that don't have slots that will take quarters. I can just see myself showing up in a handmade suit... jesus christ.

Just be careful man, http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/update-motion-to-compel-appropriate-footwear-causes-mistrial/

# ¿ Feb 5, 2011 15:31

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

The Warszawa posted:

From what I understand, all the Public Interest Law Fairs are loving scams. I'm actually working with a group that I found through the NYU PILC Fair and just applied to separately from that while bidding on it for an interview. It is one of two interviews I got, and I got hired outside the PILC fair process. In the interview, he was open about how he had started wanting to keep 5 spots open for the fair, but by the time I was interviewing (3 weeks before the fair) he was down to 1.

Also, I don't know how the Midwestern Conference does it, but apparently a lot of NYU PILC Fair employers were just making offers to resumes they liked, without waiting for the interviews.

Basically what the gently caress.

Government agencies are pretty good about actually wanting to interview people though. We have a Government/PI one. I tried applying directly to an agency in December and they told me to wait until the Fair so hopefully the dude didn't hate me or something.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2011 23:02

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

They have a category for transfer students... Has anyone every transferred IN to Cooley?

# ¿ Feb 9, 2011 04:59

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

I have 6 firm interviews from OCI but got completely shut out from government/PI...wtf?!

# ¿ Feb 10, 2011 15:47

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

drat Phantom posted:

Had an interview scheduled with a big-lawl firm, and then had said interview rescinded when my undergraduate transcript rolled in. Starting to have glimpses of no jobs, die alone and it's still my 1L year.

I didn't think that any firms cared about undergrad grades except for Cravath and a few other super high-end firms.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2011 01:01

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Omerta fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Aug 17, 2011

# ¿ Feb 15, 2011 20:42

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

The Rokstar posted:

How does the life of an average American law student compare to that of a Darfur war orphan?

The law student bitches about circumstances they are entirely accountable for. I have no sympathy for anyone who maxed out their loans on a lark to go to school.

evilweasel posted:

The problem here is higher education is over-available (at a price). If law school was free that wouldn't fix three years of opportunity cost (and you'd have even more students, probably).

Like have some kind of standards for academic quality? It's obvious that people are not behaving in a rational way. See students attending Cooley ITE. I'd be fine with requiring a student to have either a (1) 3.5+ or (2) 164+ LSAT for accessibility to federal loan guarantees. If you don't have either of those, then you have no business in law school. Some people would probably take out loans at 17% interest because they're retards, but hey that's how the world works. Should avoid the antitrust problems that owned the ABA.

Edit: the expression from the NYtimes was that "the market doesn't seem to respond to the laws of supply and demand." If something doesn't obey supply/demand, there's probably an artificial construct that is responsible. In this case, it's federally guaranteed loans. Do you think Wells Faro would lend 100k to a prospective Florida Gulf Coastal grad without federal guarantees?

Omerta fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Feb 19, 2011

# ¿ Feb 19, 2011 20:25

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

evilweasel posted:

I wasn't specifically proposing a solution. My point is that CmdrSmirnoff is clearly wrong about the 'law school problem'. It's not even unique to law school, there are similar problems with other graduate degrees except medicine. If you don't even know what the problem is you've got no chance of fixing it.

That said, I think that's one of the better solutions: making it like medicine - the hard part is getting into law school, not getting a job after.

The problem is that the ABA actually used to try to enforce some minimum standard of quality, but lost a lawsuit (lol) to the NESL which forced the ABA to accredit it. The ABA didn't go accreditation crazy til after that suit. For reasons that are beyond my understanding, the ABA was violating antitrust statutes (and the AMA isn't) the solution is going to have to be related to loan conditions since the judiciary hamstrung the ABA from protecting itself.

I think unscrupulous colleges is a way more complex issue. I have no idea how to deal with that.

Edit: getting a 3.5+ or 164+ is "hard" only under an extremely generous definition. Then again, I'd like to see J.D. programs constricted to 50 or so schools and expand how much stuff paralegals can handle. Kind of like the ongoing dynamic between M.D.s, P.A.s, and RN/CRNA. There's no reason for a full M.D. to run basic clinic duty and take blood, just like there's no reason to have a J.D. doing a lot of the simple poo poo. Let's be honest, it gets delegated to paralegals anyways. That's how things would be set up in my magical world where I'm czar of the universe.

Omerta fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Feb 19, 2011

# ¿ Feb 19, 2011 20:59

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Direwolf posted:

Nothing like realizing you wrote a brief on the wrong issue, using the wrong cases, 3 hours before said brief is due. Good thing legal writing is a graded course here!!

I would gladly sacrifice my firstborn son in order to get out of writing my brief. Privacy Act/FOIA battle :smith:

# ¿ Feb 20, 2011 04:51

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Omerta fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Aug 17, 2011

# ¿ Feb 20, 2011 15:49

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

BigHead posted:

Hypothetical situation: two 20-something soldiers, each with 8 years' soldiering experience including two tours in Iraq, get super drunk at home. They decide to play Russian Roulette. Not fake Russian Roulette. Honest-to-god, someone's-going-to-die Russian Roulette, for some stupid reason. They use Soldier A's gun. Soldier B dies. Can you convict Soldier A under an extreme indifference second degree murder theory?

http://www.adn.com/2011/03/08/1743321/soldier-killed-in-game-of-russian.html

This is one of the more hosed up stories I've ever read. They posed for facebook pictures before playing a game where one of them was going to die.

No question yes. Commonwealth v. Malone 354 Pa. 180. There have been a bunch of other russian roulette cases since then where the defendant got depraved heart murder.

edit: weighing in on the Chicago v. Harvard front, I'd take Chicago every time. The talent pool is about the same, you'll probably end up in the same zip code rank-wise at both schools. Median or below at Chicago with little debt is way better than median or below at Harvard with lots. I seriously cannot believe people are advocating Harvard here.

Omerta fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Mar 10, 2011

# ¿ Mar 10, 2011 02:08

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Linguica posted:

Ummm I only had to read to the second sentence of the opinion to notice an enormous difference in the facts

It's gonna be a lot harder to convict a guy of homicide when it was clearly death by suicide.

Oopsies, I misread it. I was going to say I thought that was awfully straightforward...

Commentary on the MPC says that "persuading a person to play russian roulette" would count as extreme indifference to human life.

Only one case that's kind of on point, not for DHM.
Commonwealth v. Schell, 3 Pa. D. & C.3d 528

lexis posted:

Defendants were involved in a game known as "Russian Roulette" with the decedent. Defendant one supplied the revolver and bullets, and defendant two handed the gun to the decedent. The decedent pulled the trigger once and fatally shot himself in the head. Defendants argued that they could not be guilty of the offense of recklessly endangering the life of another person when that person voluntarily and intentionally agreed to engage in the conduct which created the risk. The court found that each defendant provided a link leading to the death. Criminal responsibility was properly assessed against one whose conduct was a direct and substantial factor in producing a death, even though other factors were combined with the conduct to achieve the result.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2011 03:59

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Petey posted:

I think that folks are not understanding ersatz and I (or perhaps we are not communicating well).

Assume Chicago 'free ride' costs 60k in COL and harvard with some money costs 180k for a 120k delta between the two.

120k with interest is a big difference. But it is a difference of degree, not of kind.

Yeah, but you don't want to be a lawyer Petey. You want to do biggayinternetlaw. If MMBTD wants to actually be a lawyer/not academia, then the 120k in tuition savings will likely translate to $800k+ in extra earnings over his lifetime.

IMO this is trading 120k for the potential to be an academic superstar at HLS and open up some truly unique opportunities. Median is the same at both schools (maybe better to be at Chicago) and being at the top of either school is obviously fantastic. I don't really see what you gain at HLS that you wouldn't have at Chicago besides lay prestige.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2011 17:33

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

cendien posted:

Crim prof at the beginning of class: "Anyone want to take 3 minutes to complain about the USNWR rankings?"

Emory.

poo poo.

Why? We got served at OCI and the rankings should (and did) reflect that. Same thing happened to UGA. I wouldn't expect anything different. I'm sure we'll bounce back up again next year.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2011 18:23

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Omerta fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Aug 17, 2011

# ¿ Mar 15, 2011 19:20

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Omerta fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Aug 17, 2011

# ¿ Mar 31, 2011 00:19

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Do we just have an exceptionally bright group of goons this year or are all the ones considering bad schools refusing to post?

# ¿ Apr 3, 2011 14:44

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Omerta fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Aug 17, 2011

# ¿ Apr 4, 2011 00:17

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Feces Starship posted:

literally the only skills i possess are 1.) i am able to lift heavy things up and down and 2.) i am an excellent standardized testtaker and anyone who knows me irl can attest to this

welcome to an ivy league law school and i didnt even need to use skill #1

2015 Application requirements
LSAC recognized GPA
LSAT
1 rep maxes for bench/squat/deadlift

# ¿ Apr 4, 2011 02:33

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

sigmachiev posted:

Transferring has worked out pretty cool for me and not to get your hopes up (because transferring is a huge black box which is something we can talk about more) but 1% at Emory should get you into the hunt at Harvard on down. Someone mentioned Duke and Virginia and while I'd shoot apps there for sure given your interests their transfer classes are tiny compared to the big NY schools, Michigan and Berk. I'd apply to Duke, Virginia, Columbia and Harvard for sure. Top 1% is really friggin' good... I dunno I'd prob throw apps to Yale and Stanford too if you have the money with the understanding that those are reaches for a transfer no matter what. I'm thinking you're probably OK staying put with your rank and Emory already being solid in the South if your options were Michigan/Penn/Boalt (do apply to those if you want to clerk really bad and can see yourself practicing elsewhere though).

E: FWIW and this might be just rumor but I've read at a few places that Virginia really prefers residents for transfer purposes.

Godspeed sir, although I wanted another goon to join me at TTT Online Dentistry School

Thanks. UVA is out because they (along with UT) almost never accept out-of-state residents as transfers and I'm not from VA.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2011 14:41

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

TheSqueeze posted:

Stunt Rock, where'd you do undergrad mock?

I mocked the gently caress out of AMTA.

Omerta fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Aug 17, 2011

# ¿ Apr 6, 2011 21:38

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

sigmachiev posted:

Question - did anyone here ever take a class outside of their law school? They allow me to take classes pretty much wherever here (B-School and Policy School being what I'm into) for credit towards the JD and I'm interested. Employers ever give you poo poo for it?

I'm taking some statistics and accounting courses next year. They count as pass/fail, but I have a hard time believing employers would give you poo poo about it. That stuff is way more useful than regular law classes.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2011 15:39

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Incitatus posted:

If I was a true glutton for punishment would I go for a PHD in History or go to Law School?

Both

# ¿ Apr 23, 2011 17:13

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

look about six posts up.

edit: I went to a party last night and a med school student asked me if anyone at my school had a jerb.

Omerta fucked around with this message at 16:24 on May 1, 2011

# ¿ May 1, 2011 16:21

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

He was actually a really nice guy and genuinely concerned/interested.

10-8 posted:

I got into an argument at a med school happy hour last year when some Ron Paul-loving med student tried to tell me that there was no need for any health care reform because "supply and demand" would take care of the situation, and that he was eminently qualified to comment on the matter because he was a health care professional.

He didn't like it when I told him that as a soon-to-be doctor, he was to the health care market as a mechanic is to the automotive market, and that there's a reason I don't ask the guy who changes my oil for his thoughts on how to save GM.

However, most med students seem to fall into this category: the epitome of 'gently caress you, got mine.'

# ¿ May 2, 2011 01:30

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

Der Meister posted:

as a med student i can confirm that most med students are, in fact, shite

Law students suck just as bad, but at least we have the dignity to not put things like this on facebook: "Didn't give a crap about GI phys, and my heart really wasn't in CV, luckily respiratory is here to take my breath away."

# ¿ May 2, 2011 01:36

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

mrtoodles posted:

I used this too and got an A also. Best Hornbook I touched during law school, bar none.

And for what it's worth, Fed. Courts has been the class most directly applicable to the shitwork I do as a first year biglaw associate.

Anyhow, I have a cheap copy of Chemerinky's Fed. Jur. available. Act now and I will include copies of personal correspondence between me and Chemerinksy from during my bar study. (Seriously).

Omerta fucked around with this message at 00:46 on May 8, 2011

# ¿ May 4, 2011 16:48

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

drawkcab si eman ym posted:

It's not like that at all man. For my "What do you want to do after elementary school" letter I said I wanted to be a judge, and I won the County award for my position in Mock Trial during high school. I was all gung ho to do law before reading this thread during my freshman year of college. I tried out various other career paths (some stuff in health care, I did PhD research, thought about teaching) and like I said I either wasn't good at it or didn't like it.

What makes you think you'll be good at law? Winning a HS mock trial award is slightly more impressive than not pissing yourself in public.

The things I want out of my career include:

quote:

Getting paid well (I understand this is not a guarantee in the legal field. I am willing to work hard for this. If I don't get an LSAT score that puts me at least at the averages of a T1 then I will not go to law school).

You listed being paid well first; off to a bad start. Per hour, attorneys make about 14-17 dollars an hour assuming you land biglaw. Especially with your ragtag employment history, sounds like you're just looking for something that you (incorrectly) imagine will yield substantial benefits over your current station.

quote:

- Having coworkers I get along with (I actually like most prelaw people I know. We have similar interests and hobbies for the most part. I would hang out with anyone in this thread. I also like that prelaw people are driven and motivated individuals).

I've hated everyone that identified themselves as "prelaw" and law school students are pretty obnoxious. Since when have law students had similar interests besides an exaggerated view of their own self-importance and rich parents?

quote:

- Enjoying my work and being good at it. (I've touched on this before, but I find the legal field innately interestings).

Enjoying something and being good at it are two very different things. I find math fascinating, but I sucked at it once I got out of calculus. You have no proof that you enjoy actual legal work or would be good at actual legal work.

quote:

- Having time outside of work to do things I enjoy. (This is the one that legal field does not match up with very well. If I cannot find a good paying government job, I would like to find a firm that is known for its work-life balance. This will not be easy to find, so if I have to sacrifice this, I will. I dont plan on giving up all my hobbies and interests but if I have to spend less time with them, I am willing to).

lol at the bolded.
While you've done a better job of qualifying your views than a lot of other people who meander in here, they're still not particularly compelling by any stretch of the imagination.

You have vague assertions of "benefits" that seem to focus on the salary without explaining why you would be good at legal work or how you plan to pay for law school.

Personally, I think Bighead's formulation is a little strong, but he's in the right zip code. I'd water it down to T20+ no strings attached scholarship or T6 at sticker.

# ¿ May 6, 2011 20:49

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

gvibes posted:

I think your math is a little off there.
e: Or did you omit a "don't."

Yeah, there's a don't missing.

Stop posted:

Did you guys find that people benefited from reading prep material or whatever in the summer before their 1L year?

I am inclined to just say "gently caress it" and just watch cheap minor league baseball and sitcom reruns all summer, but if the prep material works then I guess I would be stupid not to do it.

I agree with the general attitude of "no substantive prep" but I would recommend reading Getting to Maybe. Read it once during the summer, then again after your first month of classes, then again two weeks before exams. Seriously, I think it helped me dominate first semester.

MEET ME BY DUCKS posted:

patent law

I found claim construction and patent prosecution to be the most mind-blowingly boring thing I've ever come across. But I like admin law, so I'm still a broken person.

# ¿ May 6, 2011 23:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 14:20

Omerta: Feb 19, 2007; I thought short arms were good for benching

MEET ME BY DUCKS posted:

on the issue of substantive prep

What Green Crayons posted is generally right, but I wanted to add two things. First, you're taking an exam for a particular professor; your answer should use their terminology. For example, my Con Law professor had a particular view of political question doctrine for justiciability that theoretically made sense, but had nothing to do with the cases, so I learned his view--not what Baker v. Carr said (or didn't say). That's one example, but it's very common.

The reason 0L prep is pretty useless is it burns you out and you're probably not learning the stuff that you would need to put on the exam (which is what determines your grade) because you don't know what your professor wants.

Second, don't get caught up in the outlining frenzy. Con law isn't magically going to change because you wrote out the holding of Gibbons v. Ogden. Get an existing outline and modify it to your class. At Harvard, I'd imagine almost every exam is open book, so make your outline around what your professor is interested in. Include small policy points, namedrop any academic s/he mentioned, point out a tension or logical problem in the analysis based on what s/he said in class.

I'd also recommend buying a charting program or creating your own charts. Having the "flow" of your general analysis planned out beforehand is very helpful. While charts are more conducive to success in some classes (torts, civpro) and less to others (Contracts), a chart makes it hard to leave out something major. Here's my chart for torts battery.

# ¿ May 7, 2011 04:53

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

«‹›13 »