|
The Warp posted:No, I've seen the chart and I've read the subsequent portions of the OP, but it's as you suspect, and she's absolutely sure that she can make that top cut and move on up to something like Davis. I have faith in her abilities and her tenacity, and I know that her family is going to do all that they can to facilitate her success, as will I, but I also take very seriously the fact that poo poo happens and that there's an element of luck involved with making grades sometimes, and that this is a difficult course of action to plan. I get what you're saying 100%, I just really wish that I had had this conversation with you guys long ago, when these plans didn't rest so heavy and seem so concrete. There's an elephant in the room and I'll point at it right here. If she's not making the top cut at Berkeley and she's not making the top cut at the LSAT, what makes her think she's going to be top cut at law school? Retake the LSAT. YOU DO NOT WANT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL IN CALIFORNIA UNLESS IT IS CALLED STANFORD, BERKELEY, USC OR UCLA.
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:so how is it having a retarded girlfriend? Maybe she just has a slanted view of the situation.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:I wouldn't call her view slanted, just narrow. She's going to put up a lot of armor in trying to resist the truth but I think The Warp can put a few chinks in it.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:You went a long way for that one. Yeah, I had to railroad it in.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 17:54
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:i suppose it was a long march, but you won in the end I just had to orient myself.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
The Warp posted: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." Let me show you something. Answer this hypothetical honestly. Bloated, fat, disgusting partner is doing your interview. He says that he'll hire you if you go down on him (or her, depending on the opposite of your current sexual preference.) Do you do it? I'd think about it. I'd eat it like it were loving candy if it were a 3 year contract at pre-crash rates for big firm associates. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 02:43 on May 28, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 02:40
|
|
|
They've posted preliminary firms interviewing for OCI. For 3Ls, there are 26. Firms that are not IP nor requiring top quarter? 3. One firm is requiring you have a clerkship lined up before you start work.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
William Munny posted:Why is Cravath interviewing at UT? It this some sort of sick joke? Is it only for the top .000001%? It's easier to get into Cravath than it is to get into Susman Godfrey.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
William Munny posted:Well, I'm still not getting anything because my grades are poo poo unless putting TMLS on my resume results in a gpa boost from 3.22 to 4.22. Still shoot for the firms you want. poo poo, you got 60 bids. Do the big Texas ones too. Fulbright's pretty good about taking a lot of folk. Also suck professor dick because they got friends. I'm still working on my dream of making a living by doing nothing but suing V&E. Mookie posted:Question why you would want to do either. Fun fact about Susman: they'll let you do a lot solo, and then when anything fun or interesting happens Steve will swoop in and push you off the case. Welcome back Mooks.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Yeah, that's not true at all. Grades are kind of arbitrary and even if they weren't, the fact that you're at a TTT doesn't mean that 90-95% of your class is dumber than you. It just means he's 90-95% more anal retentive. Then again that's a pretty good quality for law.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2010 22:21
|
|
|
Millennial posted:What is the most esoteric practice area? I am thinking tax appellate advocacy? Admiralty is pretty esoteric. So is labor, if you're not in the midwest or Pennsylvania.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2010 16:22
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:Sony is battling some class-actions about their firmware updates that you could try and get in on too, but that's probably going to be sent to a real firm. If you get handed that file your arms will break 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 15:34
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:As far back as I can remember I always wanted to be a lawyer I'm really good at arguing so I thought i would be a lawyer
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
Today's lesson: No one actually reads the poo poo you file, not your bosses, not your local counsel, nor the judge. The only people who read what you file are opposing counsel and only so they can bill. They won't pass it on to their clients until the eve of trial.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
stingray1381 posted:I don't know about at the trial court level, but I was a state appellate clerk. I read ever single brief, usually multiple times. If you had a good brief, you definitely increased your likelihood of success. Eh, once it gets to you guys it's pretty important. It's also less than 2% of what a trial court sees.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Excellent news; it sounds like she wanted to go into private law, so you cannot imagine the disaster you just avoided. Imagine having Capnscraps in a dress, or Mookie with lipstick, as your future missus. The horror... I'd make a sexy chick 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Every time I read your posts, I become further convinced practing law in Texas must be the worst. There's a reason why no one wants to do legal malpractice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 21:47
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:I read everything given to me and research/respond to every court case cited outside of a 'statement of law' section. What kind of court are you working for?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:I work civil defense for the State of Wisconsin. My job is basically to shut down the people who will later be defendants in one of your legal malpractice cases. We actually sent a letter to a judge in regards to a summary judgment that (paraphrased) stated, "Hey, there's over 300 pages filed for this summary judgment. There's another point that needs to be addressed but do you even want to read the briefing?" "No."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:The MSJ for what would become one of the largest civil judgments in SC wasn't even 300 pages. Maybe the problem is the fact that you're taking too long to get to the point. Wasn't my side who filed 200+ pages of it. The MSJ I want to file? 8 pages. Doublespaced. "Hell no, don't file that, it'll piss her off, she just dealt with a whole bunch of poo poo on this case." "Yeah, theirs." Eh, grain of salt. I just like bitching. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jun 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2010 01:06
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I'm hoping most of that was exhibits. Ahahahahahah no. With exhibits (including whole depositions, rather than excerpts), a few thousand. And then there were the motions to strike some of our expert affidavits submitted for the summary judgment. Then there was a fight over the order. Then there was the bench briefs on just how to decide the underlying case and what an expert could testify to. Let's just say that after my pissed-off affidavit post a few months back, I know entirely too much about them. And my poor proposed little summary judgment is 8 pages, with 4 exhibits. It's the functional equivalent of a dec action and it's not going to get filed for a loooong time. Said interpretation, if favorable, would quantify our damage model and settle this loving case in a heartbeat. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jun 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
Mr. Fictitious posted:Hello I have missed the past 500 posts. What tragedies have befallen you all I'm fighting with a Yale grad with 50 years of experience over how a case is decided. I'm going to lose this fight and it's going to cost us a LOT of money.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
So, hypothetical. A judge dislikes us and dislikes our case. Said case involves a matter of pure law to be decided- a contractual interpretation. But it's not a contractual interpretation between the two parties at hand- it's between our client and another party. Would it really piss the judge off if I filed a dec action against that other party in another venue and tried to use that judgment via collateral estoppel?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
gvibes posted:1) Probably wouldn't be pissed, but the cases may end up being consolidated. Roger. Welp, the summary judgment I wrote isn't going to be filed. I have no idea how the gently caress they think a jury is qualified to settle a loving lease interpretation (matter of law)  Edit: New plan. Piss off opposing counsel enough so that HE files a motion for summary judgment on this issue. It's not going to be hard. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jun 7, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
Tetrix posted:he;lp. How are lost wages damages calculated for employees who are fired while they are in a probationary period at the start of their employment? And, would reinstatement even be a possibility? Expert economist usually does it. It's usually a weekly wage times a period of time with calculated interest. But front pay is speculative as gently caress, that's why most statutes just allow for reinstatement. However, people really don't want that employee back and don't want to gently caress with a lawsuit, so they just pay you off. Depends why they are fired. Federal wrongful termination under SOX allows for reinstatement, back pay, interest and attorneys' fees plus reinstatement. No front pay. I don't know your wacky rear end state law. If your wacky rear end state law allows for front pay, make drat sure you've got a jury trial. Jury verdicts get deference but judicial verdicts get hosed in terms of damages when the case is appealed. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jun 8, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 02:22
|
|
|
Tetrix posted:How is reinstatement even an option? Couldn't they just be reinstated back into the probationary position and fired for any reason? If that's the case, then it's back to court because you were fired for the same drat reason. Generally (GENERALLY, if you're in state court look up your own case law, this is for feds) a plaintiff has to present, via a preponderance that 1) An employee engaged in a protected activity; 2) That the employer knew about that activity; 3) The employee suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) That the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse employment action. However, if you demonstrate via a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case, the burden shifts over to the Defendant to demonstrate that the protected activity was NOT a contributing factor to the adverse employment action via clear and convincing evidence. The courts usually allow for temporal proximity to serve as a presumption of causation but for the most part, you need something. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Jun 8, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Hey Scraps, I'm fine with putting up with your bullshit rambling about malpractice, but please stop talking out of your rear end about employment law. Well hell son, by all means hop in. I'm doing a legal malpractice suit for wrongful termination right now so I've left out some poo poo he might have to deal with. I also don't know if he's doing federal or state, if it's state it's likely completely different. But for federal, I'm using Allen v. Administrative Review Bd.(I left some poo poo out about filing with the secretary of labor or whoever the gently caress he works for, I don't gotta deal with that part save for the burden shifting.) Edit: I'm also operating under the assumption that, since it was a probationary period, a breach of contract claim doesn't apply. Even if a contract claim did apply, if you were going to calculate front pay, you'd still need an expert economist to calculate front pay and reduce it to present value. Kisses. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jun 8, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:suggesting SOX whistleblower for reinstatement and the case law around it is not the general rule or use for emoyment termination. When in doubt, Title VII and mcdonnell Douglas. Posting from phone. If Title VII is indeed the standard, listen to him. I played with some Title VII stuff but only enough to relate it to current case issues. They're similar in some respects but gently caress it, I'm not your lawyer. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jun 8, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:When he sues you for malpractice, let me know, I'll take the case (I don't know anything about malpractice but I'll take his money) The expert testimony requirement for a reasonable and prudent attorney means that expert will eat up any possible recovery you'd get.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2010 15:35
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:That's an amazing title. Make the main character a single parent who has to occasionally bring his 8-year old son/daughter along when the ex-wife is busy (with hilarious results), tie in something about the economic crisis forcing lawyers to work as truckers (and arm-wrestlers) and I smell a Thursday-night hit. http://www.amazon.com/Over-Top-Sylvester-Stallone/dp/B0007TKNKG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1276106132&sr=8-1 Sylvester Stallone as an arm-wrestling truck driver trying to win the love of his estranged son after his mother dies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2010 19:01
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:Yes that's where I stole most of the idea from The only time I've ever seen or heard of that movie was in Macau. And it was in Russian. No human being would ever actually watch this movie willingly, hence my incredulity 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2010 19:14
|
|
|
JohnnyTreachery posted:you can waive expert testimony if the mistake/malpractice is so obvious that a layman understands why he did a Bad Thing That's true but usually applies to something so glaringly obvious as missing deadlines, not the normal standards and practices of drafting contracts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I wish law school would start already. I'm tired of waiting. I just want to be in the thick of hating myself. 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. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jun 15, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2010 03:55
|
|
|
Durry posted:So I'm probably dropping out of law school. (Grades are trickling in, I'll be lucky to finish in the top third.) But before I do I want to troll OCI as hard as I can, without being too obvious. I have nothing to lose, I'll only be interviewing with local firms and don't plan to stay in St Louis much longer. Every interviewer has a little water bottle. Go buy a 1.5 liter bottle, bring it in with you, slam it down on the table and then kick back in your chair. Act like you're doing them a favor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
Nero posted:As a summer associate, I spend the first half every day un-loving-up whatever I did the day before, and the second half of the day loving up something new As a bitch clerk, I get yelled at because the last secretary didn't tell me some things when she quit. Like A) She didn't file the summary judgment in a case in our files; B) That the copy on my desk that got purged 2 days ago wasn't the work copy; and C) That it was an amended copy, not an original so my titling on the final document was wrong when we filed it, so opposing counsel got to be snarky in their reply to our response about the document titling. I got the reply and skimmed it then told our boss we didn't need to file a sur-reply (he agreed), and despite him reading it too, got angry when he found out at the hearing that the titling on the document was wrong. Oh, and not to mention that the 5 other plaintiffs' firms that read and copied all my research didn't catch it either. Christ I hope I don't get fired because of this poo poo. $15/hour is not worth this kind of bullshit. That's one boring-rear end wall of text but gently caress it, hopefully I can discourage people from law school. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Jun 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
Go teach English in Japan.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2010 17:09
|
|
|
builds character posted:Read and explain Erie and Palsgraf. Hahahah poo poo, you actually gave him fun cases. Go read and explain Pennoyer v. Neff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Increasingly, I am convinced that the central tenet of legal education is "Well, I had to read it, so you have to read it." I think you're absolutely right for the first year and the rest is "Ok, here's what I'M interested in and what I'M writing about and what you say better be useful to me."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
IrritationX posted:KimchiHead, I'm going to make this a very, very easy decision for you by asking one simple question: Do you want to spend the rest of your life being as bitter as the rest of the people in this thread? And that doesn't just mean your working years, but all of them, until you loving die. Because if you think they're "getting pretty worked up" over a discussion about going to law school, try being a law student or, god forbid, a lawyer, and getting even more worked up over absolutely everything. Even poo poo you disagree with. gently caress, especially poo poo you disagree with. He ain't kidding about the self-hate. I'm at the gym 10 hours a week throwing punches to relieve stress. I've got a hole the size of a nickel in the bottom of my foot and some torn cartilage in my knee and I can't stop going because I have to let out the hate. The only people who are dumb enough to work with me are stock brokers and other lawyers because they hate themselves just as much as I do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2010 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Counterpoint: I love myself and my coworkers - the work is intellectually stimulating and fun if a little boring. Haven't you only been at it a few weeks?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2010 17:19
|
|