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

«‹›3 »

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

This is important.

SlyFrog posted:

Said partner at said Upper Midwest Biglaw firm has never, and will never, discuss anything remotely related to Warhammer 40k (which said partner has not played in some years) or any other games (computer and/or miniature and/or board related) with any of said partner's partners or associates.

Said partner has spent the last roughly 10-15 years of his life in a failed attempt to become a "norm" and discuss cars, charity auctions, and whatever else these loving idiots find exciting, while suppressing the gamer/geek identity that is fundamental to his spirit.

Said partner has failed to become a norm and has also left his geek community behind, and now is a stranger in a strange land - not accepted by those people around him (for the normal ones always feel offput by a true geek, no matter how hard he tries to mask his nature), and fearing to walk with his true people (also, fearing the smell and social awkwardness of his true people).

We will never discuss gaming at my firm. If you discuss the topic in my presence, I will nervously pretend not to know what it is, while inside I will be keenly agitated and emotional, desperately dying to reach out and touch you, to finally connect, but knowing that I can not and will not. We may be in each others' presence for years, decades, never knowing or being able to share the geekery and passion that is mutually held.

I am like a closeted gay man knowing he can never come out, crying alone, convinced by the church to change into something not "disgusting," to try to love discussions about golf, cars, local politics, and hedge funds. I am the marine in American Beauty, isolated from all because of the monster I am, while I refuse to consort with my fellow monsters (as they are monsters) who might be the only company I could find.

Some day, like that marine, I will finally break and walk up to some random person I have misinterpreted as being a fellow geek. I will ask them if they would be interested in playing Space Hulk, or maybe Blood Bowl, maybe even start a small league because you know, I have all the stuff, they wouldn't even need to buy anything or bring any minis along. I will have misread them. They will laugh, and say, "Oh my god, you are a grown adult, you still play with kids toys? What, do you have Barbies too? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" Then they will tell others. Spurned, what credibility I have ruined, I will go to my dark place and end us.

# ¿ May 7, 2010 14:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:35

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Aschlafly posted:

A day after the deadline, so I'm not terribly surprised.

Like I said, I'm having math withdrawal. I was actually accepted to awesome grad school programs for theoretical bio (Stanford, Berkeley, Davis, UCLA) and agreed to go to Berkeley before freaking the gently caress out, going into panic mode, and not communicating with anyone. Maybe law school failure is a sign that I ought to rebuild those burned bridges and give grad school another shot.

Yes, yes it is. At the very least, don't go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer. it sounds like you don't

# ¿ May 8, 2010 02:22

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

SlyFrog posted:

I just had a serious internal debate whether to go home for dinner (and then try to work from home later tonight) or just stay at the office and keep grinding away.

Being a partner is nice because you are allowed to have this debate. Being a partner is not nice because you are locked into having this debate for the rest of your life.

billion dollar bitch posted:

When the ship sinks, they throw the cargo over first to save the crew. (not to be a dick or anything)

FYI, the crew is the equity partners. I don't know that this should change anyone's decision about what kind of work they're trying to do but I think it's important to be informed. At firms equity partners are all that matter. If you are at a firm that has a lockstep partnership then look at your firm's leverage and then think seriously about whether or not you're going to make equity partner. it is ok, you are a unique and beautiful snow flake

# ¿ May 10, 2010 14:44

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Incredulous Red posted:

While reading con law I was suddenly struck by this thought:

The law is really this big bubble. The bubble is kept inflated and insulated by the outside world by arcane rituals known as "procedure" and a bizarre, self-actualizing force known as "stare decisis"- kind of like vacuum energy in the big bang. The Supreme court is kind of like the wall of the bubble, sometimes expanding, really just serving as a functional barrier between the outside and the artificial world within. But imagine a world where all processes within the bubble stopped, there would be only chaos and freedom and OH GOD KILL ME

nm posted:

No cheese on tacos in madison?
Wow, hell has frozen over.

Some wise Wisconsin grad found their true calling.

# ¿ May 11, 2010 14:13

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

quepasa18 posted:

I'm leaving my firm this summer to teach full-time (hooray!) and I'm not sure how much notice I should give. This is my third firm and I've been here almost a year. The first one I didn't like them and gave exactly 2 weeks' notice because I felt that was the minimum professional requirement. I got laid off from my second firm so giving notice wasn't an issue.

Basically, I know my current firm will need to replace me, and it's likely to be with a new grad who might need some training. I was thinking of giving a month's notice, but I'm just not sure. I don't want to leave them high and dry, but I don't want to give too much notice in the event they are not happy with me leaving and ask me to go immediately (I don't anticipate that happening but you never know).

Any suggestions?

Congrats. Big firm or small firm? If big firm, then two weeks. If small firm, then no idea.

# ¿ May 11, 2010 19:16

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

diospadre posted:

The surgeon is Christian Shephard

Working for a firm positives: have a job, pays well, good exit opportunities, interesting work (for me anyway).
Working for a firm negatives: soul crushing, at work instead of watching tv.

Ainsley McTree posted:

I think that this should be the new answer to that "joke"

My old answer was "it's not possible, women can't be doctors"

I assume that's why they don't do it, since law schools are money making entities, not "valuable members of society" producers

Law schools are not money making entities, but I think it makes a lot of sense to think about them that way.

# ¿ May 12, 2010 14:30

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

thread posted:

quote questions.

Something fun you will run into if you are a transactional attorney is periods outside of quotation marks. This is done (whether right or wrong) because a term is defined at the end of a sentence. I think it's a dumb practice, but fat lot of good that's done me.

What usually happens:
This Lawyer and Law School Megathread # 12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista, dated as of the date hereof, among Linguica, as Original Poster (the "OP"), and the posters posting therein (as hereinafter defined), as amended, modified, supplemented and updated by post from time to time (the "Thread") shall do a bunch of great stuff.

What people do sometimes:
TheBestDeception, Ersatz, Judicial Restraints, The Arsteia and nm, the foregoing being herein referred to as the "Posters".

People do this because if you include the period you are including the period in the definition and you would have to type Posters. every time you wanted to use the defined term.

# ¿ May 14, 2010 14:46

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

racechat itt

this is significantly less good than tacochat.

# ¿ May 18, 2010 16:52

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/new-nalp-numbers-are-out-and-as-bad-as-ever/

# ¿ May 20, 2010 22:59

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

I would add to the SA advice:

Act like a professional. That ends up covering a lot of ground but I don't think I can over-emphasize its importance.

That's the single most important thing I can think of. Other than that, try hard, be nice and use the associate mentor your firm assigns you. Don't ask them stupid jackass questions but you should be able to ask them about what it's really like to work at that firm and why every single firm including yours hemorrhages mid-level and senior associates (do not ask your partner mentor these questions even if your partner mentor seems super nice and says something like "ask me anything you want!").

fake edit:

don't ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever get drunk. Go to every social event, have a couple of drinks and then go home after an hour or an hour and a half. You'll get a reputation as someone who goes out and is friendly but nothing more and that's exactly what you want. Some firms have more of a going out and getting hammered culture (hi Weill) than others so if you're at one of those you should stay a little longer and have another drink but there's still absolutely no reason to get drunk. Nothing good can come of it.

# ¿ May 21, 2010 16:56

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Please bear in mind I am trying to be helpful and not a jerk even though I sound like a bit of a jerk below.

entris posted:

I can't tell if you are serious or not.

I think that the subordinate attorney should stick to his guns if he thinks the partner is wrong, but the subordinate must have good data to back his position up, and must be very polite and respectful when arguing back. Don't just "stick to your guns" in typical layperson argument mode.

Here is what will happen:

a partner will tell you to research something, you will research it and then tell them what you found. Then they may say something like "I think the law is this." DO NOT SAY "you're wrong." They just listened to what you researched and disagreed. Your name isn't going on the filing and if you've explained your research to them and they disagree what possible benefit is there of telling them they're wrong. Also, even if they are wrong what are you looking to get out of it? Do you think that if you tell them the right answer they will love you and respect you and give you a job? hint: they will not. Just make sure you understand what you've researched and do a good job of explaining it and then let it go.

Once you have an offer and have worked for a partner you will have a better understanding of when you should stick to your guns and push the point. You will not have this understanding as a summer associate.

evilweasel posted:

We were specifically warned to not take on too much work since doing a bad job on one thing will significantly outweigh having done a lot of things. However, you'd better be able to justify why you're too busy (and they suggested you say "well, I have all these things to do: x,y,z, I don't think I can do an excellent job on all those and this", and let them work out which one you should stop working on.

gvibes posted:

I disagree. You'd rather do amazing work on fewer projects while saying no "to" a few people than spreading yourself too thin.

If you are working in NY this is the wrong answer.

Solomon Grundy posted:

The answer to the question "do you have time to . . . .?" is always yes.

This is the correct answer.

This is important: work is more important than your summer lunches and events. If you think an event or lunch is more important, ask your associate mentor what they think.

If there are deadlines you will not be able to meet because of conflicting projects then let people know that, but if the issue is that you will have to stay until two to get everything done when everyone else is going out to the bar then stay until two.

# ¿ May 21, 2010 22:44

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

evilweasel posted:

I've got a friend who got a partner mentor in a field they'd hate: does that mean they're likely to end up in that part of the firm this summer? This firm has a pretty small summer class this year, if it matters.

No. It just makes it easier to end up there because they'll have more contact with that partner and thus more opportunity for that partner to say "I like X and want them to work for me."

evilweasel posted:

No, I fully believe you and I'm sure it's important, what I gathered from what they were saying is that doing a lovely job on something was going to hurt you more than turning something down.

This is true. Do not ever ever ever ever ever ever ever do a lovely job on something. There's also definitely something to the NY-Chicago (or NY-anywhere else) divide.

HooKars posted:

Don't think anyone can really say since all firms are different. We got to choose which groups we rotated through during the summer at my firm. Unless things have changed drastically since I was a summer, he shouldn't be stuck in one area for the entire summer though he may rotate through.

Here's my advice: If you're rotating through several different departments and there's one you're pretty sure is the area of law you want to practice in, do an extra spectacular job in that department and get to know them - better than anyone else. Keep going to lunches or getting coffee or talking them up at events even after you rotate. In the end, your preference as to placement is secondary to which department wants you, so you want to be sure that the department you want to be in is willing to fight for you more than any other department. Don't do a lovely job in other departments but save your stand out moments for the department you're aiming at or it could backfire on you.

This is also true, but in this climate I'd be leery of not doing your very best for everything just because having a job in a lovely department is better than nothing. Sorry you got screwed HooKars.

Solomon Grundy posted:

Re: Paris Tax Law Intership

Dear Mr/Ms. Contact Person,

I am contacting you to be considered for the January 2011 tax law internship in your Paris office. I have passed the Paris bar [does Paris have a separate bar? I care where you're admitted, not where you sat for the bar] and am training in tax at the EFB Paris.

I would be an excellent fit for this position because of my extensive understanding of French and international corporate tax matters and my linguistic ability.[sorry, I didn't do a great job on the reference to cultural fit here, but you want this sentence to be a very brief summary of why you think they should hire you and I see three issues - knowledge of the law, speaking english and fitting in with their lawyers. I think it's probably ok to cover the last in the paragraph below]. I began taking tax law at Cergy-Pontoise and studied [tax] for my Master's Degree at La Sorbonne University (Master 2 de Droit des Affaires et Fiscalit�). I have continued my legal and linguistic development at my current internship at Ernst & Young Paris, where my legal research, writing and speaking experience has all been with English-speaking clients.

In addition to my legal and linguistic ability, I would be a good fit culturally. I enjoyed meeting your Paris team during a breakfast [was this an interview or a conference or something?] at your offices and look forward to working with them to provide clients concise, practical legal advice.

I am available at your convenience to discuss my candidacy further and look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you for your consideration,
Filthy French snail-eater.

I did not read the original cover letter and have changed a lot.

Roger_Mudd posted:

Hot drat, I love me some IzzyFnStradlin!

I like to imagine that he isn't a troll and that somewhere there is some bi-polar angry guy furiously pounding on his keyboard.

# ¿ May 24, 2010 15:09

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

One last note on summer associate positions, this is excellent advice for all of your e-mails. From here.

bollig posted:

- If you want something you've written to sound good, read it out loud to yourself. If you get tripped over by something, there's a good chance it won't sound good to a reader. I do this with EVERYTHING. Even IM's. If you don't want to sound like a retard, read what you write.

# ¿ May 25, 2010 23:25

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

The Warp posted:

I stayed up into the obscure hours of the night trying to explain these things to her, sometimes gently, and then sometimes reading aloud from some of the more pointed comments. The best sure thing that I managed to do was eliminate LaVerne from her choices, but I understand the resounding truth that that's not nearly enough. But she's becoming more and more pliable, I think I might be able to handle this. It's horribly ironic, she had planned to tour Western today with her mom and that's where she's at.

I suspect that you're all right about the LSAT scores, she must not have done very well, must not have understood well enough just how pivotal it was, or maybe she's just embarrassed because she won't tell me.

She's just kind of panicking right now. Should I really listen to my boyfriend because the internet told him certain things? I've told her that this is stuff she probably should have known already. She's telling me she's not sure what the gently caress she's going to do for a year, but at the same time she wonders if she'd even have enough time to study for the LSAT before it's time to reapply. Her last semester brought her up past a 3.5, and it wasn't accounted for the last time around, so that'll be good.

It's hard to see where all this reluctance is being generated from. She was one of the few kids from her close knit city in LA to make it to Berkeley, and she's the brat of her family with a huge age gap between her older siblings and her. There's a lot riding on her and I doubt her benefactors really understand the decision she's making, and it'd take some straight talk to make them understand the strategy of waiting because she's afraid it might make her look lazy or incompetent. But that doesn't matter, saving face isn't worth throwing everything away.

Thank you for the the continued advice, I'm keeping up very persistently with my chiding.

Western State just got off of its ABA probation? I don't know what this means, she seems to think that this is normal, that most new schools take years to step away from provisional status. Can you tell me specifically why this is horrible? I believe you but I need accurate ammunition and I don't know a loving thing about Law or the compulsive and miserable professions that it necessitates.

It may be the internet but we still have lawyers and law students here so it's not like you're asking for advice from FYAD. Going to Western State is a bad decision. You go to law school to become a lawyer. An employed lawyer. Nobody is going to hire her from Western State. Why would they when there are roughly eight million lawyers from much better non-provisional schools? This is what I got by googling western state law school employment.

Let me repeat: DO NOT GO. There are jobless graduates of T14 law schools, Tier 1 law schools, Tier 2 law schools and Tier 3 law schools. There are definitely no jobs for graduates of a school still on probational accreditation. It is ok if she's sad about this, it makes sense to be sad about realizing that something you really wanted to do was a terrible idea. She should take a few days to be sad about this and then figure out what else she wants to do. Also, apparently western state is a for-profit school. If that doesn't send her running I know of little else that will.

fake edit: hey, look how everyone in this thread still agrees.
fake edit 2: you can contact recent grads of schools that are employed at big firms by sorting out alma mater at those firms. Here is a good exercise: look at Latham's attorneys. Look at where they went to school. Note that none of them went to western state. Latham is a good firm (the decision to fire 1/3 of their employees notwithstanding) with lawyers from almost every school. Except western state. Look at some other big firms and see whether they have hired anyone from western state. Because western state is not good even the people who are at the top of their class each year aren't getting hired.

# ¿ May 27, 2010 23:41

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

The Warp posted:

She's wondering who the gently caress you guys are and where are all the unemployed lawyers you're talking about? She thinks that's there's no harm in going to Western State because she'll get her JD and pass the bar exam like every other lawyer, that they all learn the same damned material and they offered her a really huge scholarship. She thinks that you guys are just saying that she won't have a house by the beach or a cushy corporate firm, but I don't think she understands that it's more dire than that.

I need to let this sit for a couple of days because now we're just straight up fighting about it. She thinks she has no choice in the matter and that this is what she wants to do, I should just shut up and support her, blah blah. She thinks that it'll be totally fine if she goes to a lovely school, it's fine if she settles, at least she'll have an edge on people with just undergraduate degrees if she has not be a lawyer and just enter the job market. This is getting so stupid. "Yes, all of these guys on this website are just trying to trick and you and I, and they're not really lawyers or students, it's just a vast network of carefully planned trolls with nothing more important to do than to gently caress with you all day and night."

I am an attorney working at a big firm in NY. The unemployed lawyers are all around her and if she hasn't taken the time to read about them she's doing a poor job researching (or reading the god damned OP).

TyChan posted:

I bet he slept with someone important.

In all seriousness, it's like one of those things where everyone in NYC goes, "well, I know someone from Cardozo who now works at Skadden," and it turns out it's always the same guy (or girl). The snobby part of me thinks that background sticks out in people's minds because it's actually rare. The fact that the school can spin that into making lots of people think it's a commonplace thing really ticks me off.

Using Latham again because I linked to it yesterday - http://latham.com/Attorneys.aspx?page=AttorneySearchResults&school=1419&attorneySearchMode=name 2 attorneys out of 2000.

Oh look, 118 people from Harvard.

# ¿ May 28, 2010 15:27

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Zikan posted:

Thankfully this thread has completely turned me off from the idea of going to law school. However I was too late to save some of my friends. One is going to Stetson University College of Law and I weep for her and what she has gotten herself into.

How bad is McGeorge School of Law at University of the Pacific? It break Top 100 (at 98). How hosed are the both of them?

Proper hosed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-0_sL5AAVQ

J Miracle posted:

I literally cling to qualifiers like these

# ¿ May 28, 2010 23:01

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

William Munny posted:

Why is Cravath interviewing at UT? It this some sort of sick joke? Is it only for the top .000001%?

Their hiring partner went to UT and wants tacos. Also, they might take the editor of your law review.

Lilosh posted:

Two days ago, I got accepted to Cornell.

I'm submitting the application for financial aid now, but likely it's going to come back "Sorry, grants are gone, enjoy borrowing sticker price!" I just sent in my seat deposit. God help me.

I hope the gamble of paying sticker for an Ivy League T14 pays off. Two-three threads of "Don't go no jobs die alone" have me nervous. My friends think I'm insane for being nervous, but they haven't read about law school.

If I win the grade lottery, is there a way to get grants for 2L and 3L? Or is the situation "If it's not awarded at admission, it's never awarded"?

Someone lie and tell me it will all be ok.

Read 10-8's posts on financial aid. They make going to law school a marginally less bad decision.

nm posted:

If you can stand unemployment for a bit and can work for free, you can likely get good experience that will land you a decent job in the long term if you don't suck and are in the top 50%. You'll be buried in debt.

A friend of mine got fired and then volunteered for six months and now has a job he got because of his experience volunteering so if you're not doing anything go volunteer for someone who has connections.

Mookie posted:

Question why you would want to do either.

Susman is like Wachtell, sign your organs away at the door for massive paychecks to make your classmates jealous.

Have you made partner yet? More importantly, how are your shoes?

fougera posted:

Also any advice specific to interning for in-house counsel? Generally speaking, I'm a little worried about my writing, particularly whether I can crank it out in a timely fashion (I always took forever on our LRW assignments). Any general advice appreciated. I'm sure its come up numerous times in the thread given the time of the year but I figure its better than talking about URMs, splitters, and DGNJDA.

Also, can we bring back work-attire-chat? I didn't notice anyone wearing a suit during my interviews, will I be fine not bringing a jacket?

1. There are twenty four hours in a day (seriously, stay late and do a good job and you'll eventually speed up and until then it's difficult to fault you for working hard and wanting to do a good job).
2. Wear a suit your first day, then wear whatever everyone else is wearing.

Millennial posted:

What is the most esoteric practice area? I am thinking tax appellate advocacy?

Advocacy involves arguing with real live people. I'd go with something like ERISA or the '40 act where you have zero contact with any clients and your only job is to know everything about some weird law but it's so difficult that firms will make you partner if you do know everything about it. I'd say some variety of corporate tax but those folks have their own clients.

Jove posted:

Help me dear goons! I just got my financial aid package back from HLS. Turns out I'll be owing roughly 125K after three years.

Assuming I find myself square in the median at the end of 1L, is it still worth it?

I mean, on the one hand, HLS. On the other, don't go no jobs die alone. Eh?

I have about a month until I sign the promissory notes.

Do you want to be a lawyer?

# ¿ Jun 1, 2010 13:34

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

I came here to post this and say I'm not sure whether or not that guy is absolutely brilliant.

JudicialRestraints posted:

That's funny, I've already had to read several cases involving Disney. They kinda sue everyone over thinking about Mickey Mouse without paying them.

Disney, Nintendo and Google - IP IP IPIPIPIPI IPIPI PIIP IP IP IPIPIPIPPIP. That is what you will be doing in house. Sure, there's some transactional work too, but the vast majority of their work will relate to IP. Nintendo gets sued by ~~patent trolls~~ legitimate companies that worked hard to develop important patents that Nintendo STOLE every time they make a new console/DS. Disney sues every time someone uses Mickey Mouse (note that this isn't actually as dick a move as you might think) except the University of Oregon. Google is also gets sued a fair bit, both because they have the deepest pockets of any company ever except BP and because they tend to push the envelope a bit.

edit: a friend of mine works in house as a lawyer at a video games company and loves it but spends way less time at work playing video games than one might hope.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2010 14:00

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Green Crayons posted:

For some reason I have the notions that 1. getting into IP law is difficult because it requires additional education outside of a JD and 2. that the IP field, in general, is shrinking.

I don't know why I have these notions or where I got them from, but they don't really seem to gel with what you just described. Are they incorrect?
Didn't realize about the pay - but isn't inhouse just generally lower/mediocre across the board? I only remember reading about them being an awesome employer. Granted, the article wasn't for Google lawyers, so maybe the attorneys were relegated to the lovely spaces while all of the tech savvy employes got blowjobs and whatever.
I actually knew about these two, I'm just apparently unable to connect news stories to the fact that they require litigation. Or maybe I shouldn't post in the morning.
"My story? Okay. It was never easy for me. I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' down in Mississippi. And then I wanted to go to LAW SCHOOL X."

There are two types of IP: hard IP and soft IP. Hard IP is patent stuff that requires membership in the patent bar. That requires education outside of a JD. Soft IP does not require additional education and is basically everything not patents. That said, if it's you with your BA in English and John Doe with his PhD in chemistry then John is getting the soft IP job.

That the vast majority of the IP work at those companies is IP isn't necessarily an indication that the IP field is shrinking. Historically it's much larger than it used to be but more recently I think there was an IP boom and then the economy tanked and jobs generally and spending on law services generally, both including IP, contracted. If you get a job at a big firm I don't know that you're any less likely to be able to do IP now than you were three years ago. It's just the first part that's more difficult now. I suppose the second is a bit more difficult because there are fewer hard IP jobs so those folks are competing for the soft IP jobs but I'm not aware of a huge increase in the number of soft IP folks with hard IP backgrounds.

At least in the transactional world you can usually expect to make about 70% of what you made as an associate when you go in-house. Of course there are places where that's not the case and I don't know what the conversion rate is for litigation folks.

Ainsley McTree posted:

As far back as I can remember I always wanted to be a lawyer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tkzc983aE0

# ¿ Jun 4, 2010 00:31

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

The Warp posted:

Mission Accomplished

Hey brodles, a few pages back you guys were helping me with my girlfriend. Well, I figured it's only fair to congratulate you on a flawless victory. With your help, I managed to get her to put law school on hold for a year while she thinks about things and retakes her LSAT. So thank you so much! If you guys weren't handing me the ammo, I don't think I'd have been able to save her life from soul-crushing mediocrity! I had her read all of your comments and I guess that planted the seed.

Today however, was her first day of an internship at a local law firm. She figured she'd stay busy and get a taste of what real law was, and after one day she's already questioning it. It's an unpaid internship, 40 hours a week, and she was hired along with two other interns. One is a girl who's already done one year of law school, and the other is a JD that graduated from SD a year ago who's been out of work since then. It's been a good exposure for her, now she can see what her prospects are. She's considering telling legal work to got gently caress itself altogether. Now we just gotta figure out what the gently caress she's going to do with her rhetoric/media studies degrees from Berk. Sexcess!

Jove posted:

Don't get me wrong. I've been reading these threads for a long time (since at least when Mookie was getting his Bateman shtick up and running), so I've been at least fairly disillusioned about what being a lawyer entails and how bad the legal market is right now. I've just had this plan for a very long time and I'll be goddamned if I'm turning away now. And, I mean, poo poo, not many young Black men are in as envious a position.

If you are black and go to HLS then you can probably get a job at a big firm in NY. I do not know whether this applies to any other jobs.
This is why.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2010 14:42

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

CmdrSmirnoff posted:

Seriously, why haven't you applied there yet?

# ¿ Jun 4, 2010 20:28

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Ainsley McTree posted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/disturbing-job-ads-the-un_n_600665.html

god DAMNIT

Here is where you are now.

Here is where you should be.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2010 23:34

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Ainsley McTree posted:

I'm more of an OE guy actually

I had OE at first but then it seemed like a less classy alternative conveyed the idea better.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2010 00:22

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Ainsley McTree posted:

But to attempt to actually answer your question (without having done any research mind you) I can't imagine any reason why the whistleblower statute wouldn't apply to a probationary employee unless there's something in the statute or the regs or a case that says so. If it applies to at-will employees, why wouldn't it apply to ones in a probationary period? Isn't that the whole point of employment laws, to restrict the employer's generally unmitigated power to fire people who have no job security in their contract? It wouldn't be legal to fire someone in violation of anti-discrimination statutes just because they're in a probationary period (as far as I know - again, haven't done any research), why would the whistleblower statute be any different? I'd assume that normal remedies would apply

I'm gonna round that up to 12 minutes, I'll send you an invoice

Bill in .25 hour increments.

Unrelated: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/michigan-lawyer-ryan-hill-has-a-funny-way-of-showing-marriage-matters/

# ¿ Jun 8, 2010 23:49

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

GamingHyena posted:

Does anyone really bill in .25 increments? If I make 4 five minute phone calls for different clients, can I really bill them collectively an hour for 20 minutes of work?

Yes.

GamingHyena posted:

Does your firm just write off massive amounts of time or do you have the world's most understanding clients?

Enough two minute emails and five minute phone calls and you could get a whole day's work in by 10:00am

There are some firms that charge a premium for their work. Their engagement letters go something like this "We are going to advise you regarding the following matters and you will be represented by, among others, partner A and associate B, the rates for which are X and Y respectively. Our bill will include our standard 20% premium. Good luck suckers." Then they send a one line bill for three million dollars for legal services (and then the issuer pays it).

That said, as a practical matter, most firms bill at, and most clients insist on, .1 increments and if you're billing in .25 increments you just don't bill for those phone calls and e-mails. Unless, of course, you're representing someone who isn't paying their own legal bills (for example, a bunch of bankruptcy work, working for trustees, working for underwriters) or if you're working on a huge deal. Then you bill for everything and at the end the client says "no, I'm not paying for those two minute e-mail responses and phone calls but fine I will pay the rest of your ludicrously large legal bill" and the partners laugh all the way to the bank.

Green Crayons posted:

Tell him you could totally write up a release in the here and now, but doing such a thing would be not only unethical but also grounds for you being disbarred as soon as you were to pass the bar (I don't know if the latter is entirely true, but I doubt he does either so feel free to ~~talk out of your rear end~~ embellish what sounds approximately correct). Tell him to be patient and wait one month to sell his undoubtedly totally bitchin' halfpipe until after you pass the bar.

Use the next month to study for the bar. After you drag yourself out of the drunken haze you'll undoubtedly find yourself post-bar exam, just look up random Release Agreements on the internet and piece together something that looks pretty official. I would guess it would take about an hour. Tell him you'll give him a discount because he's a friend and charge him $50.

Welcome to the beginning of the rest of your life!

There is a difference between passing the bar and being admitted to the bar. You have to be admitted before you can practice.

edit: this is all true too.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2010 14:30

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Green Crayons posted:

So, the process is: you take the bar, pass the bar and then you have to be admitted to the bar? What's between passing and being admitted? Is that when the character and fitness/background check comes into play?

You have to be supervised by lawyers admitted to practice. This is also the case if you're practicing in a state in which you are not admitted (happens most often with new lawyers being admitted in Md, NY or VA and practicing in DC before they can waive in).

# ¿ Jun 9, 2010 18:17

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Abugadu posted:

Could be that they thought one side was complete bullshit one week into the trial, and spent the rest of the time praying that y'all would shut up and finish quickly. They do talk to each other before they recess for a verdict, they'd likely decided long before they were sent off to deliberate.

Just a thought.

Wrong, all jury trials are like the movie twelve angry men. I know because I am a lawyer.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2010 15:18

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

PMan_ posted:

So for almost 5 years now I've been an attorney with a local government agency that represents abused and neglected kids that have been taken away from their families. It's not a bad gig, but it's time for a change. I've been sending out resumes to other government agencies, but I'm also considering firms.

My question is: Does anyone have any tips on how to break out from government work and get into firms, or is it really all just about knowing people? In law school I was all about saving the world, so I kind of stayed away from all the networking opportunities with firms and what not, so I'm kind of on the outside looking in.

The other possible barrier is that I'm in a pretty narrow practice where I am now. I'm in court almost daily, but the law we use, regarding child abuse and neglect, is pretty much used only where I am now, and I don't really dip my feet into any other areas.

If you mean V100 big firms then I am sorry to say it is going to be almost impossible. I do not know about other firms.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2010 19:02

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Lykourgos posted:

The original was too broad; if you want to be an ambulance chaser or sell every waking hour to shitlaw, then you really don't know what you ought to want for yourself. It's been pointed out that, with few exceptions, government work is the best work. You could of course be a government civil attorney, or some sort of regulator, but let's be honest: if you want to get into a high class profession, then don't aim for the arse end of it. Therefore, criminal law; plus you do the most good there anyway, given the higher issues involved.

Be careful, you're dangerously close to another ugly british teeth picture under your name.

TACOCHAT

I went to tortilleria nixtamal this weekend and it is excellent. It's approximately forty miles away from Manhattan (half an hour on the 7) and as a result the tacos are better there than any I have had in Manhattan. If you are in NY this summer (or live here and love tacos) then you should go. The fish tacos were only mediocre but the tamales and other tacos were absolutely fantastic.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2010 21:30

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

HooKars posted:

Anyone have any really good made-up excuses for wanting to work in a specific state that you have no connection to (and haven't even ever been to)?

Lie. I also think everyone should recognize you were sucker punched by your NYC job. This is a more compelling story if you're switching practice areas now. "I really wanted to do litigation but when they were assigning us they had a glut of corporate work and most of us were assigned to the corporate group only to be laid off when that work dried up. I'm really excited about the opportunity to get back to litigation."

CaptainScraps posted:

I think my hatred for law school has actually exceeded my hatred for myself. Bar torts, every single course I've ever taken has been wholly useless outside of the classroom. I actually use my undergraduate major more on a day-to-day basis than I do my legal education. Law school is less about teaching you how to be a lawyer than a professor waxing over the topics that they're interested in while not teaching you a loving thing about the law as practiced.

Then again, I'm bitter over the latest round of grades. Maybe saying "Assuming plaintiff could find a jury with a full set of teeth between them, they would prevail in court" is the wrong thing to say in a final exam. Alternately, I might just be poo poo at both law theory and practice so just take it with a grain of salt.

Securities law courses are very useful. Corporations or Business Associations courses are good background to have. Bankruptcy courses can be incredibly useful.

Oh wait, litigation? :frogout:

Solomon Grundy posted:

Family law is horrible. You don't want to do it unless you have a personality disorder. Everyone always ends up hating you, even your own client. Watching the kids get punted around like a football is the worst, especially when the clients start accusing each other of abusing the kids, real or imagined.

Solomon Grundy posted:

Family law is horrible. You don't want to do it unless you have a personality disorder. Everyone always ends up hating you, even your own client. Watching the kids get punted around like a football is the worst, especially when the clients start accusing each other of abusing the kids, real or imagined.

Solomon Grundy posted:

Family law is horrible. You don't want to do it unless you have a personality disorder. Everyone always ends up hating you, even your own client. Watching the kids get punted around like a football is the worst, especially when the clients start accusing each other of abusing the kids, real or imagined.

I'm not quoting this three times because it's the internet and I think it's funny.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2010 14:25

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Kase Im Licht posted:

How should I account for 2 years of doc review on my resume?

I've gotten too used to just using it for applying to doc review projects. Even when I've applied for permanent jobs, the format is still too based around highlighting doc review experience, with every separate project given its own line with firm name, any special position held (privilege review, team leader, QC team), and the dates for that individual project. With about 8 projects I put on there, that is taking up a lot of space. I could just leave a general entry about being a contract attorney, but I've had some fairly long projects at top firms, and some experience being slightly more than a regular coder. Its not much, but I'd at least like employers to know that while I'm a gently caress up in general, I'm not a gently caress up contract attorney.

The last 9 months I've been working part-time at small law firm, and I've got that at the very top, but I don't think I do enough substantive work there (and its only PT and I don't want to end up having to lie to anyone) to act like that's all I've done these last 9 months. They said I could call myself Of Counsel, I basically sign things they file in VA (and make sure they comply with weirdo VA rules) and meet clients to sign them up/evaluate their cases).

I've actually got a couple connections at the moment, which I'd like to not totally waste. Someone I helped out is married to a partner at a large law firm. Maybe he could get me a staff attorney job. Or maybe a paralegal job.

Also have a friend at a consulting firm that asked me for my resume. This was the one that made me realize I needed some serious change. "Its just a list of everywhere you worked, you need to highlight skills you've learned and things you've accomplished." But I don't learn or accomplish anything. Still, I've got to find some way to make what I do sound more impressive to non-legal types.

What is it exactly you do as a contract attorney? How about as privilege review, team leader, QC team etc? Why are those positions special?

# ¿ Jun 15, 2010 20:33

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

I think you missed the point of his post. He doesn't need the nuts and bolts, but you can take those nuts and bolts and put them together in a more interesting way to explain why you would be a good lawyer and not just a doc reviewer.

Explain all that in a valuable way, as in what type of privilege you were looking for, what type of cases it was one, how you crafted a search tool that screened for items with 99% accuracy, supervised other attorneys and were the client contact on various projects...

Put it this way, as a hiring partner at a firm I don't give a poo poo that you looked through electronic documents and flagged stuff, but I am interested to know the subject matter and complexity of the documents and how you used your legal expertise to determine what to flag.

Yes.

Every single bullet or whatever should have a message. Think of them as little talking heads. For example you might want to say you have lots of client contact or that you have excellent analytical skills. Then tailor your description to emphasize those. Instead of "clicked yes/no 30/120 times a minute" you could say "Analyzed discovery [can you use discovery as a noun? I don't know] for relevance to [particular type of antitrust law]." Some ideas for points to make are knowing a particular kind of law, experience supervising, self-starter, client contact, researching, negotiating, team work and working without supervision.

If I were drafting a resume for myself I would try to make this point: "Give me a deal and I will take care of it for you." All of the descriptions of my experience would be geared toward that idea. I'd include drafting documents, negotiating with counterparties and their counsel and being the primary contact for clients (including what type of clients so that the reader was comfortable that I could deal with their type of clients). For your resume you need to figure out what the point you're trying to make is and then tailor your description of the nuts and bolts to get across the message that you are good at that point. Unfortunately I don't know what the types of jobs you're looking at are looking for so I can't be as much help with respect to what your point should be.

edit: here is some specific advice:

under the experience section have the part time job first with lots of meaty descriptions, then have contract attorney second (is there another way to say this?) with a brief description of the work generally (bearing in mind the message you're trying to send) and then under contract attorney you can have each project as a separate indented point with a brief description of how awesome you were on that particular project.

Firm Name, Location
Title and dates
* description

Contract Attorney Company or just Contract Attorney if there were a bunch of companies, Location, dates
* Project description of your skills
* Project 2 description of your skills

builds character fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jun 15, 2010

# ¿ Jun 15, 2010 22:35

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

I Am Not Clever posted:

Forgive me, because I'm sure that you know more about this than I do, but wouldn't that depend on my goals?

The schools are the 3 law schools in the state of Oregon: Lewis & Clark, University of Oregon, and Willamette.

I don't really want to defend my choice of schools, so can we just assume for a second that I would want to get into one of these schools? What is the proper strategy when you are waitlisted at multiple schools?

I want to contact them again, but should I?

Hey, look at everyone telling you not to go. I wonder why that is?

I Am Not Clever posted:

I had no idea about any of this doom and gloom. If what you're saying is true, it sounds like the legal profession is in very bad shape in this country.

That said, I think I'm still going to go if I have the chance. I have an uncle who is an attorney with his own successful small firm. I wasn't planning on going to him and asking for help, but I can, if I have to. He's probably going to retire in a few years.

Seems like a better prospect than going back to work at Walmart.

Oh right, that.

I don't want to sound crazy here, but talk to your uncle before you go to school.

Here is what you should be thinking (but are not) before deciding to go to law school.

1. Do I want to be a lawyer? (A: I do not know)
2. Will going to these law schools give me that opportunity? (A: almost certainly not in this economy. In '05 maybe.)
2A. What are my employment prospects? (A: nil, except for your uncle.)
3. Talk to your uncle and see if you have a job lined up before you go.

You're grasping for straws because (i) going to law school and becoming a lawyer is still firmly embedded in the American psyche as one of the tried and true paths to success, and (ii) you work at Walmart and that sucks.

Instead of doing something dumb you should take a step back and look at your options. What do you really want to do with your life? You have lots of free time in which to pursue the things you want to do. Go ahead, go and think about what you want to do with your life. Here is a short list of things you would probably like doing more:

whitewater rafting guide
ornithologist
working for ben affleck in the boiler room
being a carpenter
being a consultant
teaching english in east asia
joining the foreign service

The best part is that you can do whatever you want before you go to law school. Once you go to law school you are basically stuck (sorry Ainsley) and you can't get a job as a barista because you are overqualified.

Look at 10-8's post. Now read it again and think about how it applies to you. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I think you're making a bad decision without really taking the time to think it through.

All of that said, if you continue on this path go to Oregon unless you are admitted to Lewis & Clark's special environmental law program (but you aren't). Call each school and tell them that if you get in off the wait list you will come. Send them a letter saying this. Do not say "YOU ARE MY NUMBER ONE FAVORITE ALL TIME PICK" but do say "I am very excited about the opportunity to attend [____] and if admitted would enroll."

10-8 posted:

Congrats on being the person to make me break my two-month law thread celibacy.

You encapsulate why I decided a couple of months ago to stop posting in this thread. Helping 0Ls is just a waste of everyone's time. Someone asks for advice, they get the advice, and then they do what they want anyway. And in a few years, when they don't have a job, they whine about how unfair it is and how they were lied to.

I took a bunch of interns out to lunch yesterday and they started asking me about LLM programs and what I thought of them. I said that they weren't worth it, especially not at the schools they're considering. But it didn't matter what I was saying, they had already decided to go.

I've adopted a new mantra towards 0Ls, and it's been working out great: let them do what they want and then enjoy their sweet, delicate tears when they fail miserably a few years later.

edit:

Me Clumsy posted:

It is not limited to the US. Here in Brazil, if you went to a T1 law school, your chances of landing a decent job are greater, but by no means guaranteed, as the jobs simply aren't there.

If you went to anything less than T1, however, you just became a commodity that can be fired and replaced at will because there is a line of people willing to take your job. The job is mind-numbing because no one in their right mind will trust real important issues to you, so I hope you enjoy a life of errands and organizing documents and being a generic assistant to the big boys for US$ 20k a year.

Interestingly, if you went to a T14 school in the US and speak Portuguese there continue to be opportunities working for US firms in Brazil.

builds character fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Jun 17, 2010

# ¿ Jun 17, 2010 15:06

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Kase Im Licht posted:

Yeah, slight misread there.

I've never gone much into detail on doc review projects because I figured anyone familiar with the work would just roll their eyes at attempts to make it sound complex. Have I just been doing this too long and gotten too bitter and negative about it?

You're not trying to make it sound complex or like you're performing brain surgery. Everyone in the entire world knows that doc review is not exactly brain surgery. What you're trying to do is tell the person reading that while you're not doing brain surgery you have useful skills that you'll be able to apply to their job. And, just as importantly, that you are able to develop skills while working at a job.

Here is an example about transactional work: being a transactional attorney is, for much of your first year, about changing dates and numbers, making sure other people's comments get made and making sure all of the documents are ready on time and everyone signs everything. That's why no one wants to pay for first years. At the same time, your first year you're also learning which documents there are in different deals, what they look like, how attorneys negotiate, how to speak to clients and (if your partners and senior associates are good) what the law is and how it's applied. So you can say "I played mad libs with names and dates in deal docs, did whatever the partners told me to and assembled signature pages" or you can say "I negotiated, I had client contact and I have experience with Rule 144A offerings and proxy statements." Both of those are true but the latter sends a very different message. As a first year you couldn't say "drafted merger agreement for JPM in acquisition of Bear Stearns" but you can talk about what you've done in such a way that it highlights what you've learned and the skills you bring to the table rather than the mechanics of how you learned or developed those skills.

Kase Im Licht posted:

Everything? In the legal world its mostly random govt attorney/contract specialist jobs & small firm jobs. Random staff attorney positions at large firms when I have the occasional connection to something like that.

Nonlegal: consulting, intel, law enforcement, foreign service, anything to get me a freaking job.

As far as I know, there's no other way to say contract attorney. Nothing that sounds better anyway. Doc reviewer & coder both seem like bad ideas.

So basically the message I'm seeing is, make each project sound like an immensely important separate thing that was very different in lots of important ways from all the other very important projects I've been on.

You're able to quickly pick up on different areas of the law (I assume you have to learn what is bad for asbestos vs. what's bad for securities fraud vs. etc), work hard, supervise other attorneys, meet deadlines, code, recognize where an alternative solution/method is more efficient then develop and implement that solution (still coding but do you see where I'm going with this?).

Each project isn't an immensely important separate thing, but you can't present them as "fogged spoon, clicked yes/no."

Kase Im Licht posted:

This is going to take up a lot of room. Go to a second page?

In the "Project x" area, are you thinking law firm I worked for or what?

One long pharma project got decently technical. I now know a lot more about the female body than I ever thought I would. Most reviews are fairly simple and just require a basic understanding of business concepts. I've read over some really technical computer engineering docs, though we barely knew what we were looking at. My loathing of doc review gets in the way here again. If a contract attorney tried to tell me he was an expert on something because he did a review related to that subject matter I would probably think he was an idiot. I have known some that really did become experts on stuff after doing nothing but that one case for a couple years though.

Never ever go to a second page. Unless you're really important. If you want I'm happy to take a look at your resume, just shoot me a pm.

Law firm and case as long as it's a matter of public record. If not then law firm + type of case.

For the long pharma case you can add in some knowledge about the law. Or you can add something about reviewing technical data or the like. Your message there could be "I am good at science stuff, I learn and I have fairly extensive knowledge in this technical area." If he tried to tell you he was an expert and wasn't then yes, but if you're able to speak intelligently about it then that's another case entirely.

Kase Im Licht posted:

I really suck at selling myself. Even slightly exaggerating qualifications makes me uncomfortable and I start imagining that I'll be called on it an interview and be run out of the office with an angry mob behind me. Stupid parents.

Don't think of it as selling yourself. Pretend you're writing a resume for a friend of yours you think is awesome. What would you say about the skills they have that would make them look valuable to an employer?

Omerta posted:

One of my friends has been working for Wachtell (read super duper exclusive NY firm, one of the best in the U.S.) as a paralegal. He worked 92 hours last week. Being a lawyer rules.

Being a lawyer sucks because none of that would be overtime for a lawyer (plus Wachtell's been pretty stingy with bonuses as of late).

# ¿ Jun 18, 2010 00:10

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

KimchiHead posted:

I did say "for example." I also said "BU places well in its region, or at least it used to." You're getting pretty worked up.

I actually enjoy reading arguments/cases and analyzing them. I took a few classes in undergrad, like "Philosophy and Law", which required doing just that, and they were my favorite classes. As for the profession itself, it doesn't sound too bad to me. I like to keep busy, and if I can squeeze in my significant other and a hobby during the week, it's fine by me, just as long as she doesn't start cheating on me for never being home and poo poo..

Read and explain Erie and Palsgraf.

edit:

HELEN PALSGRAF, Respondent,
v.
The LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

Negligence � Railroads � Passengers � Package carried by passenger, dislodged while guards were helping him board train, and which falling to track exploded � Plaintiff, an intending passenger standing on platform many feet away, injured as result of explosion � Complaint in action against railroad to recover for injuries dismissed.

A man carrying a package jumped aboard a car of a moving train and, seeming unsteady as if about to fall, a guard on the car reached forward to help him in and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind, during which the package was dislodged and falling upon the rails exploded, causing injuries to plaintiff, an intending passenger, who stood on the platform many feet away. There was nothing in the appearance of the package to give notice that it contained explosives. In an action by the intending passenger against the railroad company to recover for such injuries, the complaint should be dismissed. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right, and the conduct of the defendant's guards, if a wrong in relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff standing many feet away.

Palsgraf v. Long Island R. R. Co., 222 App. Div. 166, reversed.

(Argued February 24, 1928; decided May 29, 1928.)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, [*340] entered December 16, 1927, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.

William McNamara and Joseph F. Keany for appellant. Plaintiff failed to establish that her injuries were caused by negligence of the defendant and it was error for the court to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. (Paul v. Cons. Fireworks Co., 212 N. Y. 117; Hall v. N. Y. Tel. Co., 214 N. Y. 49; Perry v. Rochester Lime Co., 219 N. Y. 60; Pyne v. Cazenozia Canning Co., 220 N. Y. 126; Adams v. Bullock, 227 N. Y. 208; McKinney v. N. Y. Cons. R. R. Co., 230 N. Y. 194; Palsey v. Waldorf Astoria, Inc., 220 App. Div. 613; Parrott v. Wells Fargo & Co., 15 Wall. 524; A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co. v. Calhoun, 213 U. S. 1; Prudential Society, Inc., v. Ray, 207 App. Div. 496; 239 N. Y. 600.)

Matthew W. Wood for respondent. The judgment of affirmance was amply sustained by the law and the facts. (Saugerties Bank v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 236 N. Y. 425; Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469; Lowery v. Western Union Tel. Co., 60 N. Y. 198; Insurance Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44; Trapp v. McClellan, 68 App. Div. 362; Ring v. City of Cohoes, 77 N. Y. 83; McKenzie v. Waddell Coal Co., 89 App. Div. 415; Slater v. Barnes, 241 N. Y. 284; King v. Interborough R. T. Co., 233 N. Y. 330.)

CARDOZO, Ch. J.

Plaintiff was standing on a platform of defendant's railroad after buying a ticket to go to Rockaway Beach. A train stopped at the station, bound for another place. Two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men reached the platform of the car without mishap, though the train was already moving. The other man, carrying a package, jumped aboard the car, but seemed unsteady as if about to fall. A guard on the car, who had held the door open, reached forward to help [*341] him in, and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind. In this act, the package was dislodged, and fell upon the rails. It was a package of small size, about fifteen inches long, and was covered by a newspaper. In fact it contained fireworks, but there was nothing in its appearance to give notice of its contents. The fireworks when they fell exploded. The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform, many feet away. The scales struck the plaintiff, causing injuries for which she sues.

The conduct of the defendant's guard, if a wrong in its relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff, standing far away. Relatively to her it was not negligence at all. Nothing in the situation gave notice that the falling package had in it the potency of peril to persons thus removed. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right. "Proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do" (Pollock, Torts [11th ed.], p. 455; Martin v. Herzog, 228 N. Y. 164, 170; cf. Salmond, Torts [6th ed.], p. 24). "Negligence is the absence of care, according to the circumstances" (WILLES, J., in Vaughan v. Taff Vale Ry. Co., 5 H. & N. 679, 688; 1 Beven, Negligence [4th ed.], 7; Paul v. Consol. Fireworks Co., 212 N. Y. 117; Adams v. Bullock, 227 N. Y. 208, 211; Parrott v. Wells-Fargo Co., 15 Wall. [U. S.] 524). The plaintiff as she stood upon the platform of the station might claim to be protected against intentional invasion of her bodily security. Such invasion is not charged. She might claim to be protected against unintentional invasion by conduct involving in the thought of reasonable men an unreasonable hazard that such invasion would ensue. These, from the point of view of the law, were the bounds of her immunity, with perhaps some rare exceptions, survivals for the most part of ancient forms of liability, where conduct is held to be at the peril of the actor ([*342] Sullivan v. Dunham, 161 N. Y. 290). If no hazard was apparent to the eye of ordinary vigilance, an act innocent and harmless, at least to outward seeming, with reference to her, did not take to itself the quality of a tort because it happened to be a wrong, though apparently not one involving the risk of bodily insecurity, with reference to some one else. "In every instance, before negligence can be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining, the observance of which would have averted or avoided the injury" (McSHERRY, C. J., in W. Va. Central R. Co. v. State, 96 Md. 652, 666; cf. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Wood, 99 Va. 156, 158, 159; Hughes v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co., 71 N. H. 279, 284; U. S. Express Co. v. Everest, 72 Kan. 517; Emry v. Roanoke Nav. Co., 111 N. C. 94, 95; Vaughan v. Transit Dev. Co., 222 N. Y. 79; Losee v. Clute, 51 N. Y. 494; DiCaprio v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 231 N. Y. 94; 1 Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, � 8, and cases cited; Cooley on Torts [3d ed.], p. 1411; Jaggard on Torts, vol. 2, p. 826; Wharton, Negligence, � 24; Bohlen, Studies in the Law of Torts, p. 601). "The ideas of negligence and duty are strictly correlative" (BOWEN, L. J., in Thomas v. Quartermaine, 18 Q. B. D. 685, 694). The plaintiff sues in her own right for a wrong personal to her, and not as the vicarious beneficiary of a breach of duty to another.

A different conclusion will involve us, and swiftly too, in a maze of contradictions. A guard stumbles over a package which has been left upon a platform. It seems to be a bundle of newspapers. It turns out to be a can of dynamite. To the eye of ordinary vigilance, the bundle is abandoned waste, which may be kicked or trod on with impunity. Is a passenger at the other end of the platform protected by the law against the unsuspected hazard concealed beneath the waste? If not, is the result to be any different, so far as the distant passenger is concerned, when the guard stumbles over a valise [*343] which a truckman or a porter has left upon the walk? The passenger far away, if the victim of a wrong at all, has a cause of action, not derivative, but original and primary. His claim to be protected against invasion of his bodily security is neither greater nor less because the act resulting in the invasion is a wrong to another far removed. In this case, the rights that are said to have been violated, the interests said to have been invaded, are not even of the same order. The man was not injured in his person nor even put in danger. The purpose of the act, as well as its effect, was to make his person safe. If there was a wrong to him at all, which may very well be doubted, it was a wrong to a property interest only, the safety of his package. Out of this wrong to property, which threatened injury to nothing else, there has passed, we are told, to the plaintiff by derivation or succession a right of action for the invasion of an interest of another order, the right to bodily security. The diversity of interests emphasizes the futility of the effort to build the plaintiff's right upon the basis of a wrong to some one else. The gain is one of emphasis, for a like result would follow if the interests were the same. Even then, the orbit of the danger as disclosed to the eye of reasonable vigilance would be the orbit of the duty. One who jostles one's neighbor in a crowd does not invade the rights of others standing at the outer fringe when the unintended contact casts a bomb upon the ground. The wrongdoer as to them is the man who carries the bomb, not the one who explodes it without suspicion of the danger. Life will have to be made over, and human nature transformed, before prevision so extravagant can be accepted as the norm of conduct, the customary standard to which behavior must conform.

The argument for the plaintiff is built upon the shifting meanings of such words as "wrong" and "wrongful," and shares their instability. What the plaintiff must [*344] show is "a wrong" to herself, i. e., a violation of her own right, and not merely a wrong to some one else, nor conduct "wrongful" because unsocial, but not "a wrong" to any one. We are told that one who drives at reckless speed through a crowded city street is guilty of a negligent act and, therefore, of a wrongful one irrespective of the consequences. Negligent the act is, and wrongful in the sense that it is unsocial, but wrongful and unsocial in relation to other travelers, only because the eye of vigilance perceives the risk of damage. If the same act were to be committed on a speedway or a race course, it would lose its wrongful quality. The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension (Seavey, Negligence, Subjective or Objective, 41 H. L. Rv. 6; Boronkay v. Robinson & Carpenter, 247 N. Y. 365). This does not mean, of course, that one who launches a destructive force is always relieved of liability if the force, though known to be destructive, pursues an unexpected path. "It was not necessary that the defendant should have had notice of the particular method in which an accident would occur, if the possibility of an accident was clear to the ordinarily prudent eye" (Munsey v. Webb, 231 U. S. 150, 156; Condran v. Park & Tilford, 213 N. Y. 341, 345; Robert v. U. S. E. F. Corp., 240 N. Y. 474, 477). Some acts, such as shooting, are so imminently dangerous to any one who may come within reach of the missile, however unexpectedly, as to impose a duty of prevision not far from that of an insurer. Even today, and much oftener in earlier stages of the law, one acts sometimes at one's peril (Jeremiah Smith, Tort and Absolute Liability, 30 H. L. Rv. 328; Street, Foundations of Legal Liability, vol. 1, pp. 77, 78). Under this head, it may be, fall certain cases of what is known as transferred intent, an act willfully dangerous to A resulting by misadventure in injury to B (Talmage v. Smith, 101 Mich. 370, 374) [*345] These cases aside, wrong is defined in terms of the natural or probable, at least when unintentional (Parrot v. Wells-Fargo Co. [The Nitro-Glycerine Case], 15 Wall. [U. S.] 524). The range of reasonable apprehension is at times a question for the court, and at times, if varying inferences are possible, a question for the jury. Here, by concession, there was nothing in the situation to suggest to the most cautious mind that the parcel wrapped in newspaper would spread wreckage through the station. If the guard had thrown it down knowingly and willfully, he would not have threatened the plaintiff's safety, so far as appearances could warn him. His conduct would not have involved, even then, an unreasonable probability of invasion of her bodily security. Liability can be no greater where the act is inadvertent.

Negligence, like risk, is thus a term of relation. Negligence in the abstract, apart from things related, is surely not a tort, if indeed it is understandable at all (BOWEN, L. J., in Thomas v. Quartermaine, 18 Q. B. D. 685, 694). Negligence is not a tort unless it results in the commission of a wrong, and the commission of a wrong imports the violation of a right, in this case, we are told, the right to be protected against interference with one's bodily security. But bodily security is protected, not against all forms of interference or aggression, but only against some. One who seeks redress at law does not make out a cause of action by showing without more that there has been damage to his person. If the harm was not willful, he must show that the act as to him had possibilities of danger so many and apparent as to entitle him to be protected against the doing of it though the harm was unintended. Affront to personality is still the keynote of the wrong. Confirmation of this view will be found in the history and development of the action on the case. Negligence as a basis of civil liability was unknown to mediaeval law (8 Holdsworth, History of English Law, p. 449; Street, Foundations of Legal Liability, vol. 1, [*346] pp. 189, 190). For damage to the person, the sole remedy was trespass, and trespass did not lie in the absence of aggression, and that direct and personal (Holdsworth, op. cit. p. 453; Street, op. cit. vol. 3, pp. 258, 260, vol. 1, pp. 71, 74.) Liability for other damage, as where a servant without orders from the master does or omits something to the damage of another, is a plant of later growth (Holdsworth, op. cit. 450, 457; Wigmore, Responsibility for Tortious Acts, vol. 3, Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, 520, 523, 526, 533). When it emerged out of the legal soil, it was thought of as a variant of trespass, an offshoot of the parent stock. This appears in the form of action, which was known as trespass on the case (Holdsworth, op. cit. p. 449; cf. Scott v. Shepard, 2 Wm. Black. 892; Green, Rationale of Proximate Cause, p. 19). The victim does not sue derivatively, or by right of subrogation, to vindicate an interest invaded in the person of another. Thus to view his cause of action is to ignore the fundamental difference between tort and crime (Holland, Jurisprudence [12th ed.], p. 328). He sues for breach of a duty owing to himself.

The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us. The question of liability is always anterior to the question of the measure of the consequences that go with liability. If there is no tort to be redressed, there is no occasion to consider what damage might be recovered if there were a finding of a tort. We may assume, without deciding, that negligence, not at large or in the abstract, but in relation to the plaintiff, would entail liability for any and all consequences, however novel or extraordinary (Bird v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 224 N. Y. 47, 54; Ehrgott v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 96 N. Y. 264; Smith v. London & S. W. Ry. Co., L. R. 6 C. P. 14; 1 Beven, Negligence, 106; Street, op. cit. vol. 1, p. 90; Green, Rationale of Proximate Cause, pp. 88, 118; cf. Matter of Polemis, L. R. 1921, 3 K. B. 560; 44 Law Quarterly Review, 142). There is room for [*347] argument that a distinction is to be drawn according to the diversity of interests invaded by the act, as where conduct negligent in that it threatens an insignificant invasion of an interest in property results in an unforseeable invasion of an interest of another order, as, e. g., one of bodily security. Perhaps other distinctions may be necessary. We do not go into the question now. The consequences to be followed must first be rooted in a wrong. The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

ANDREWS, J. (dissenting). Assisting a passenger to board a train, the defendant's servant negligently knocked a package from his arms. It fell between the platform and the cars. Of its contents the servant knew and could know nothing. A violent explosion followed. The concussion broke some scales standing a considerable distance away. In falling they injured the plaintiff, an intending passenger.

Upon these facts may she recover the damages she has suffered in an action brought against the master? The result we shall reach depends upon our theory as to the nature of negligence. Is it a relative concept�the breach of some duty owing to a particular person or to particular persons? Or where there is an act which unreasonably threatens the safety of others, is the doer liable for all its proximate consequences, even where they result in injury to one who would generally be thought to be outside the radius of danger? This is not a mere dispute as to words. We might not believe that to the average mind the dropping of the bundle would seem to involve the probability of harm to the plaintiff standing many feet away whatever might be the case as to the owner or to one so near as to be likely to be struck by its fall. If, however, we adopt the second hypothesis [*348] we have to inquire only as to the relation between cause and effect. We deal in terms of proximate cause, not of negligence.

Negligence may be defined roughly as an act or omission which unreasonably does or may affect the rights of others, or which unreasonably fails to protect oneself from the dangers resulting from such acts. Here I confine myself to the first branch of the definition. Nor do I comment on the word "unreasonable." For present purposes it sufficiently describes that average of conduct that society requires of its members.

There must be both the act or the omission, and the right. It is the act itself, not the intent of the actor, that is important. (Hover v. Barkhoof, 44 N. Y. 113; Mertz v. Connecticut Co., 217 N. Y. 475.) In criminal law both the intent and the result are to be considered. Intent again is material in tort actions, where punitive damages are sought, dependent on actual malice� not on merely reckless conduct. But here neither insanity nor infancy lessens responsibility. (Williams v. Hays, 143 N. Y. 442.)

As has been said, except in cases of contributory negligence, there must be rights which are or may be affected. Often though injury has occurred, no rights of him who suffers have been touched. A licensee or trespasser upon my land has no claim to affirmative care on my part that the land be made safe. (Meiers v. Koch Brewery, 229 N. Y. 10.) Where a railroad is required to fence its tracks against cattle, no man's rights are injured should he wander upon the road because such fence is absent. (Di Caprio v. N. Y. C. R. R., 231 N. Y. 94.) An unborn child may not demand immunity from personal harm. (Drobner v. Peters, 232 N. Y. 220.)

But we are told that "there is no negligence unless there is in the particular case a legal duty to take care, and this duty must be one which is owed to the plaintiff [*349] himself and not merely to others." (Salmond Torts [6th ed.], 24.) This, I think too narrow a conception. Where there is the unreasonable act, and some right that may be affected there is negligence whether damage does or does not result. That is immaterial. Should we drive down Broadway at a reckless speed, we are negligent whether we strike an approaching car or miss it by an inch. The act itself is wrongful. It is a wrong not only to those who happen to be within the radius of danger but to all who might have been there� a wrong to the public at large. Such is the language of the street. Such the language of the courts when speaking of contributory negligence. Such again and again their language in speaking of the duty of some defendant and discussing proximate cause in cases where such a discussion is wholly irrelevant on any other theory. (Perry v. Rochester Line Co., 219 N. Y. 60.) As was said by Mr. Justice HOLMES many years ago, "the measure of the defendant's duty in determining whether a wrong has been committed is one thing, the measure of liability when a wrong has been committed is another." (Spade v. Lynn & Boston R. R. Co., 172 Mass. 488.) Due care is a duty imposed on each one of us to protect society from unnecessary danger, not to protect A, B or C alone.

It may well be that there is no such thing as negligence in the abstract. "Proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do." In an empty world negligence would not exist. It does involve a relationship between man and his fellows. But not merely a relationship between man and those whom he might reasonably expect his act would injure. Rather, a relationship between him and those whom he does in fact injure. If his act has a tendency to harm some one, it harms him a mile away as surely as it does those on the scene. We now permit children to recover for the negligent killing of the father. It was never prevented on the theory that no duty was owing to them. A husband may be compensated for [*350] the loss of his wife's services. To say that the wrongdoer was negligent as to the husband as well as to the wife is merely an attempt to fit facts to theory. An insurance company paying a fire loss recovers its payment of the negligent incendiary. We speak of subrogation�of suing in the right of the insured. Behind the cloud of words is the fact they hide, that the act, wrongful as to the insured, has also injured the company. Even if it be true that the fault of father, wife or insured will prevent recovery, it is because we consider the original negligence not the proximate cause of the injury. (Pollock, Torts [12th ed.], 463.)

In the well-known Polemis Case (1921, 3 K. B. 560), SCRUTTON, L. J., said that the dropping of a plank was negligent for it might injure "workman or cargo or ship." Because of either possibility the owner of the vessel was to be made good for his loss. The act being wrongful the doer was liable for its proximate results. Criticized and explained as this statement may have been, I think it states the law as it should be and as it is. (Smith v. London & Southwestern Ry. Co., [1870-71] 6 C. P. 14; Anthony v. Slaid, 52 Mass. 290; Wood v. Penn. R. R. Co., 177 Penn. St. 306; Trashansky v. Hershkovitz, 239 N. Y. 452.)

The proposition is this. Every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others. Such an act occurs. Not only is he wronged to whom harm might reasonably be expected to result, but he also who is in fact injured, even if he be outside what would generally be thought the danger zone. There needs be duty due the one complaining but this is not a duty to a particular individual because as to him harm might be expected. Harm to some one being the natural result of the act, not only that one alone, but all those in fact injured may complain. We have never, I think, held otherwise. Indeed in the Di Caprio case we said that a breach of a [*351] general ordinance defining the degree of care to be exercised in one's calling is evidence of negligence as to every one. We did not limit this statement to those who might be expected to be exposed to danger. Unreasonable risk being taken, its consequences are not confined to those who might probably be hurt.

If this be so, we do not have a plaintiff suing by "derivation or succession." Her action is original and primary. Her claim is for a breach of duty to herself�not that she is subrogated to any right of action of the owner of the parcel or of a passenger standing at the scene of the explosion.

The right to recover damages rests on additional considerations. The plaintiff's rights must be injured, and this injury must be caused by the negligence. We build a dam, but are negligent as to its foundations. Breaking, it injures property down stream. We are not liable if all this happened because of some reason other than the insecure foundation. But when injuries do result from our unlawful act we are liable for the consequences. It does not matter that they are unusual, unexpected, unforeseen and unforseeable. But there is one limitation. The damages must be so connected with the negligence that the latter may be said to be the proximate cause of the former.

These two words have never been given an inclusive definition. What is a cause in a legal sense, still more what is a proximate cause, depend in each case upon many considerations, as does the existence of negligence itself. Any philosophical doctrine of causation does not help us. A boy throws a stone into a pond. The ripples spread. The water level rises. The history of that pond is altered to all eternity. It will be altered by other causes also. Yet it will be forever the resultant of all causes combined. Each one will have an influence. How great only omniscience can say. You may speak of a chain, or if you please, a net. An analogy is of little aid. [*352] Each cause brings about future events. Without each the future would not be the same. Each is proximate in the sense it is essential. But that is not what we mean by the word. Nor on the other hand do we mean sole cause. There is no such thing.

Should analogy be thought helpful, however, I prefer that of a stream. The spring, starting on its journey, is joined by tributary after tributary. The river, reaching the ocean, comes from a hundred sources. No man may say whence any drop of water is derived. Yet for a time distinction may be possible. Into the clear creek, brown swamp water flows from the left. Later, from the right comes water stained by its clay bed. The three may remain for a space, sharply divided. But at last, inevitably no trace of separation remains. They are so commingled that all distinction is lost.

As we have said, we cannot trace the effect of an act to the end, if end there is. Again, however, we may trace it part of the way. A murder at Serajevo may be the necessary antecedent to an assassination in London twenty years hence. An overturned lantern may burn all Chicago. We may follow the fire from the shed to the last building. We rightly say the fire started by the lantern caused its destruction.

A cause, but not the proximate cause. What we do mean by the word "proximate" is, that because of convenience, of public policy, of a rough sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point. This is not logic. It is practical politics. Take our rule as to fires. Sparks from my burning haystack set on fire my house and my neighbor's. I may recover from a negligent railroad. He may not. Yet the wrongful act as directly harmed the one as the other. We may regret that the line was drawn just where it was, but drawn somewhere it had to be. We said the act of the railroad was not the proximate cause of our neighbor's fire. Cause it surely was. The words we used were [*353] simply indicative of our notions of public policy. Other courts think differently. But somewhere they reach the point where they cannot say the stream comes from any one source.

Take the illustration given in an unpublished manuscript by a distinguished and helpful writer on the law of torts. A chauffeur negligently collides with another car which is filled with dynamite, although he could not know it. An explosion follows. A, walking on the sidewalk nearby, is killed. B, sitting in a window of a building opposite, is cut by flying glass. C, likewise sitting in a window a block away, is similarly injured. And a further illustration. A nursemaid, ten blocks away, startled by the noise, involuntarily drops a baby from her arms to the walk. We are told that C may not recover while A may. As to B it is a question for court or jury. We will all agree that the baby might not. Because, we are again told, the chauffeur had no reason to believe his conduct involved any risk of injuring either C or the baby. As to them he was not negligent.

But the chauffeur, being negligent in risking the collision, his belief that the scope of the harm he might do would be limited is immaterial. His act unreasonably jeopardized the safety of any one who might be affected by it. C's injury and that of the baby were directly traceable to the collision. Without that, the injury would not have happened. C had the right to sit in his office, secure from such dangers. The baby was entitled to use the sidewalk with reasonable safety.

The true theory is, it seems to me, that the injury to C, if in truth he is to be denied recovery, and the injury to the baby is that their several injuries were not the proximate result of the negligence. And here not what the chauffeur had reason to believe would be the result of his conduct, but what the prudent would foresee, may have a bearing. May have some bearing, for the problem [*354] of proximate cause is not to be solved by any one consideration.

It is all a question of expediency. There are no fixed rules to govern our judgment. There are simply matters of which we may take account. We have in a somewhat different connection spoken of "the stream of events." We have asked whether that stream was deflected�whether it was forced into new and unexpected channels. (Donnelly v. Piercy Contracting Co., 222 N. Y. 210). This is rather rhetoric than law. There is in truth little to guide us other than common sense.

There are some hints that may help us. The proximate cause, involved as it may be with many other causes, must be, at the least, something without which the event would not happen. The court must ask itself whether there was a natural and continuous sequence between cause and effect. Was the one a substantial factor in producing the other? Was there a direct connection between them, without too many intervening causes? Is the effect of cause on result not too attentuated? Is the cause likely, in the usual judgment of mankind, to produce the result? Or by the exercise of prudent foresight could the result be foreseen? Is the result too remote from the cause, and here we consider remoteness in time and space. (Bird v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 224 N. Y. 47, where we passed upon the construction of a contract�but something was also said on this subject.) Clearly we must so consider, for the greater the distance either in time or space, the more surely do other causes intervene to affect the result. When a lantern is overturned the firing of a shed is a fairly direct consequence. Many things contribute to the spread of the conflagration�the force of the wind, the direction and width of streets, the character of intervening structures, other factors. We draw an uncertain and wavering line, but draw it we must as best we can.

Once again, it is all a question of fair judgment, always [*355] keeping in mind the fact that we endeavor to make a rule in each case that will be practical and in keeping with the general understanding of mankind.

Here another question must be answered. In the case supposed it is said, and said correctly, that the chauffeur is liable for the direct effect of the explosion although he had no reason to suppose it would follow a collision. "The fact that the injury occurred in a different manner than that which might have been expected does not prevent the chauffeur's negligence from being in law the cause of the injury." But the natural results of a negligent act�the results which a prudent man would or should foresee�do have a bearing upon the decision as to proximate cause. We have said so repeatedly. What should be foreseen? No human foresight would suggest that a collision itself might injure one a block away. On the contrary, given an explosion, such a possibility might be reasonably expected. I think the direct connection, the foresight of which the courts speak, assumes prevision of the explosion, for the immediate results of which, at least, the chauffeur is responsible.

It may be said this is unjust. Why? In fairness he should make good every injury flowing from his negligence. Not because of tenderness toward him we say he need not answer for all that follows his wrong. We look back to the catastrophe, the fire kindled by the spark, or the explosion. We trace the consequences�not indefinitely, but to a certain point. And to aid us in fixing that point we ask what might ordinarily be expected to follow the fire or the explosion.

This last suggestion is the factor which must determine the case before us. The act upon which defendant's liability rests is knocking an apparently harmless package onto the platform. The act was negligent. For its proximate consequences the defendant is liable. If its contents were broken, to the owner; if it fell upon and crushed a passenger's foot, then to him. If it exploded [*356] and injured one in the immediate vicinity, to him also as to A in the illustration. Mrs. Palsgraf was standing some distance away. How far cannot be told from the record�apparently twenty-five or thirty feet. Perhaps less. Except for the explosion, she would not have been injured. We are told by the appellant in his brief "it cannot be denied that the explosion was the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries." So it was a substantial factor in producing the result�there was here a natural and continuous sequence�direct connection. The only intervening cause was that instead of blowing her to the ground the concussion smashed the weighing machine which in turn fell upon her. There was no remoteness in time, little in space. And surely, given such an explosion as here it needed no great foresight to predict that the natural result would be to injure one on the platform at no greater distance from its scene than was the plaintiff. Just how no one might be able to predict. Whether by flying fragments, by broken glass, by wreckage of machines or structures no one could say. But injury in some form was most probable.

Under these circumstances I cannot say as a matter of law that the plaintiff's injuries were not the proximate result of the negligence. That is all we have before us. The court refused to so charge. No request was made to submit the matter to the jury as a question of fact, even would that have been proper upon the record before us.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

POUND, LEHMAN and KELLOGG, JJ., concur with CARDOZO, Ch. J.; ANDREWS, J., dissents in opinion in which CRANE and O'BRIEN, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2010 21:39

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Tetrix posted:

Career services says:

Employer goons: should I really not round up my hundredths place digit? In that example I would want to put 3.33.

Round to 3.33.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2010 16:27

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

Mookie posted:

His jacket is tailored wrong. The sleeves aren't supposed to come down that far. Also, not sure I am a fan of the brown/white spectators with the seersucker. Probably would have gone classic white bucks myself.

Yes, mock him for his sleeves (trousers also dragging in the dirt) and not for his ridiculous collar and bow tie/ascot/cravat/wtf is that?

Ainsley McTree posted:

Screw that, just give him ERISA. Or maybe the bankruptcy code

code:


Sec. 544. Trustee as lien creditor and as successor to certain
      creditors and purchasers

(a) The trustee shall have, as of the commencement of the case,
    and without regard to any knowledge of the trustee or of any
    creditor, the rights and powers of, or may avoid any transfer of
    property of the debtor or any obligation incurred by the debtor
    that is voidable by - 
        (1) a creditor that extends credit to the debtor at the time of
      the commencement of the case, and that obtains, at such time and
      with respect to such credit, a judicial lien on all property on
      which a creditor on a simple contract could have obtained such a
      judicial lien, whether or not such a creditor exists;
        (2) a creditor that extends credit to the debtor at the time of
      the commencement of the case, and obtains, at such time and with
      respect to such credit, an execution against the debtor that is
      returned unsatisfied at such time, whether or not such a creditor
      exists; or
        (3) a bona fide purchaser of real property, other than
      fixtures, from the debtor, against whom applicable law permits
      such transfer to be perfected, that obtains the status of a bona
      fide purchaser and has perfected such transfer at the time of the
      commencement of the case, whether or not such a purchaser exists.

I like the code tags around the bankruptcy code. :hf:

You should add a hypo to make it more fun. Here:

A goes bankrupt. Before A declares bankruptcy, B agrees to provide A with a loan. After A goes bankrupt, B provides the loan and seeks retroactive approval of the loan from the court. The court denies B. After A declares, C, with the approval of the court, loans A money. Before and during the period of A's bankruptcy, D continues to provide A with the widgets A needs to operate A's business and A pays D using B and C's money. The court appoints a trustee and the trustee decides that C will get paid .80 on the dollar and B will get paid .20 on the dollar. B and C sue D to get back the money that A paid D. What result? Address the impact of Sec. 544 on the result. How would the result have been different if B's loan was secured by A's property? How would that result differ if the property securing B's loan was an aircraft?

Linguica posted:

A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

This is a good example of an ethical violation that is virtually impossible to enforce.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2010 15:08

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

_areaman posted:

Never used it to apply for law school, but I was recently hired over several other applicants, and they specifically mentioned that they found my LSAT score impressive. It doesn't hurt to put it on your resume.

I don't know who you're replying to but do not ever do this.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2010 22:19

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

gvibes posted:

Holy crap. A test score on a resume would be an insta-trash for me.

Is it finance-related? They love the tests.

Still do not do this for a finance-related position. For a finance-related position you should include a deal sheet listing the deals you've done. Taking the LSAT is not a deal.

Soothing Vapors posted:

SlyFrog posts are literally the best posts

InternetRulesLawyer posted:

I don't see where people are getting that Remedial is scamming people in real life. There's links all over the NH bar website about this case. The New Hampshire bar apparently backs Dargon and other real estate attorneys from oversight from the Banking Department and apparently a Superior Court judge agrees. The NH Banking Commissioner is being removed by the governor and executive council for incompetence. The law looks really, really poorly worded and poorly thought out, too. Even the ABA thinks the law is dumb and overbroad.

There's even a chronology of what happened that makes it sound like everybody was surprised by what the Banking Department did:

tl;dr a guy steals video game money and that makes him a real life criminal mastermind who apparently got 10 other lawyers to go along with him???

I think as lawyers it can be very easy to confuse "the thing that my client/I am doing is ok to do" and "there is an argument that you can do the thing we are doing" and I think it's important to take a step back and think about this sometimes. Of course lawyers should be able to help clients with mortgage modifications - some of the basic jobs lawyers do is advising clients about contracts and helping clients with disputes. But the manner in which one goes about doing it is pretty important.

From your first link: "the NH Banking Department's...requiring attorneys to be licensed as mortgage originators in order to assist clients with mortgage modifications" - this is, on its face, a bad decision, but it's probably bad because of what attorneys are doing in this market.

I don't really care about whether or not some guy stole video game money (unless the story is funny in which case can someone please link it?), but the idea that ten other lawyers going along with something means it's ok is silly. From a very brief look at what's going on, the attorneys in this market look predatory. I'd be curious to hear if you have a different perspective.

Mookie posted:

Protip: don't steal people's money, in EVE or in loan modification scams. It makes Baby Jesus cry.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2010 14:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:35

builds character: Jan 16, 2008; Keep at it.

evilweasel posted:

The short version:

Remedial founded and ran Goonfleet, the EVE goon group, for some time (year or two). As one of the last things he did, he raised money for a titan - the biggest ship you could have in-game, useful as poo poo for some things and at that time invincible. I think he raised something like 50 billion in in-game currency - to put that in perspective, you can buy 30 days worth of playtime for ~300m, and that playtime is ~$15. At the same time, he got cut off by his parents (the reasons why are unknown to anyone but Remedial, he claims because they didn't like his fiance but who knows), so he begged for rent money (and got it!) on the goonfleet forums. He also implemented a space libertarian policy which failed completely. He then quit (largely because the alliance was on the brink of being destroyed) without turning over control of the titan fund. About a month later, he announced he'd stolen it, though some money was recovered I think through some less than legitimate means. He then ebayed the isk.

The real kicker in all of this is Remedial is a fervent libertarian which is ironic on several levels. Oh, and other goonfleet directors were the only people at his wedding.

Some time later one of the better goonfleet trolls posed as someone interested in a threesome with remedial and his wife and conned remedial into sending pictures of his penis (mistake). Some time later I believe the same person faxed it to his law office - inappropriate, sure but hilarious. I mean "uh so boss why is someone faxing us this dick picture over and over again?"

All of that stuff is hilarious, and almost nobody really bears a grudge - though it's great fun to troll him over it - since hell, I made as much as he stole just this month in EVE, goonfleet has titans, and another goonfleet CEO topped his theft by an order of magnitude. It just will never cease to be the most hilarious refutation of libertarianism ever.

Scamming broke people though is really not funny and is really a terrible thing to do. I can see that maybe he got himself in over his head and he can't do anything else but keep going to keep himself financially stable but it's sad and it's wrong, and even if he's right that it's technically legal, it shouldn't be.

I agree, scamming is still bad regardless of his current position and its (questionable) legality.

entris posted:

What the gently caress is happening to this thread? Do we really need another discussion/explanation of the whole video game guild leader drama thing? Not picking on you, evilweasel, but one mention of bankruptcy law and whoosh this thread went off to the races about Mr. Dargon or whoever.

On an unrelated note, I am in the process of interviewing college seniors and recent grads for a low-paying administrative assistant position, and I just had a phone interview with one student who wants to go to law school for "international law and constitutional law." She doesn't like "international law" as much because she isn't that interested in principles of sovereignty, so she thinks constitutional law is a better fit for her.

To my credit, I did not laugh into the phone when she said this.

I did not know about this internet drama so the explanation was helpful and made me laugh.

But what will she do once she graduates?

_areaman posted:

Well, I'm the one who got the job, so obviously it isn't always a bad idea. The position is software engineering, one of the guys who made the hiring decisions is an ex-lawyer, and I put the test score in the bottom of my education section.

I would accept "put your LSAT on your resume if you are applying for a software engineering position where one of the persons making hiring decisions is an ex-lawyer" as an exception to the general rule of do not put your LSAT on your resume.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2010 18:16

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

«‹›3 »