PDA

View Full Version : Getting into law school?


flyinghippos101
10-29-2011, 03:16 PM
To all TT lawyers, I'm a first year university student and have for years been really interested in doing something in criminal law after uni. I was just wondering, what should I be mindful of in the coming years to maximize my chances of going into law school and how can I build a good base of experience that will be applicable to the legal field?

Thanks

PS. I'm Canadian.

Carlito
10-29-2011, 03:24 PM
To all TT lawyers, I'm a first year university student and have for years been really interested in doing something in criminal law after uni. I was just wondering, what should I be mindful of in the coming years to maximize my chances of going into law school and how can I build a good base of experience that will be applicable to the legal field?

Thanks

Don't do it!!!

But if you insist, an engineering degree or some hard science degree is the best way to get in to law school. Easy to get a attorney job if you have one of those.

flyinghippos101
10-29-2011, 03:33 PM
Well right now I'm in my school's arts program and I'm aiming at either a major in history or poli sci

Fearsome Forehand
10-29-2011, 04:19 PM
The higher your grades and LSAT scores, the more options you will have in terms of top schools (unless you are an oppressed minority then you just have to read without moving your lips.) :) Get all A's and you can't go wrong (and not that hard to do if you apply yourself, stay focused, work your profs and avoid hanging out with idiots. ) I did not apply myself at all and still got well above a 3.0 in undergrad. College is super easy if you are a reasonably good student or better. The exception is if you are majoring in something that doesn't match your abilities. (Such as a severely math challenged person majoring in hard sciences, engineering, computer science, etc.)

Many lawyers have liberal arts undergrad degrees; History, English, Poli Sci, Philosophy, etc. For criminal law, you could just as well major in drama, communication or criminal justice because, if you ever end up in front of a jury, making a great presentation is key.
Try to get some public speaking experience.

You can major in anything and go to law school. And it is not hard to get into a law school; it is hard to get into an elite law school.
Your school should have some sort of pre-law program. That can serve as a guideline. Or, if it has a law school, you could inquire there.

Check out the admissions requirements of the schools that you think you might be interested in. That will give you a clue as to what you will need in terms of GPA and LSAT. Lots of info on the internet. Google is your friend.

If you insist on going the liberal arts major route, I would suggest picking a subject that you really enjoy as your major. The degree itself won't be worth much unless you are attending a top school. Plan on having a very hard time finding a good job because liberal arts degrees, in general, grant you no marketable skills unless you go to grad school for an MBA, a JD or something similar. If you can't find a job, you can always pitch a tent on Wall Street with the other liberal arts majors. :)

I would suggest you change your major to something marketable unless you are 100% certain you want to go to grad school. Otherwise, you are probably spending a whole lot of money for no return.

autumn_leaf
10-29-2011, 04:43 PM
I would definitely see about internship programs. Make sure you want to be a lawyer. Because a lot of times professions aren't what they appear to be. And if you do decide on it, go to a top law school, no middle of the pack 2nd tier stuff. There are plenty of broke grads with law degrees because they thought any old law degree would mean a guaranteed job, it doesn't.

I was looking up MBA programs and it's the same deal. Schools are churning out these former high return of interest degrees fast and the value of them are decreasing exponentially because of it. Private institutions that are not as well known charge as much as Ivy Leagues and people end up with ~100k-200k of debt without a viable way to pay it off.

If you find a company to work for that has tuition reimbursement that's the route I would choose, actually that's the route I'm choosing now. NYU or Columbia would cost me approximately 100k for 2 years. Question to ask myself, do I want to be in debt for another 10-20 years. This is a serious question, unfortunately one that many college students don't take into consideration because it's been drilled into their heads to go to college at any cost.

Fearsome Forehand
10-29-2011, 05:48 PM
I agree that doing an internship in a law office would give you a clue what it si like to work in law. Not sure if you want to be a DA or a defender of the wrongly accused. :) If you present yourself well, you might be able to talk yourself into an internship. Email all the law offices in your area, follow up on the phone and see if you get any takers.

You also might want to take note of the percentage of law grads who opt out of law careers once they see what the job really is. One of my tennis buddies has a JD and an advanced law degree, passed the bar in CA and decided to be a stay at home dad after briefly working for a law firm. One of the guys I went to high school with got a JD from a good law school practiced for a short time and then became a home builder. On the other hand, there are guys who love it and make a ton of bucks defending the "wrongfully accused." Just depends on what you want. Another guy I went to college with was a philosophy major with an odd sense of humor. He became the chief public defender for a large urban county. When I knew him, he did a lot of recreational drugs.

El Diablo
10-29-2011, 06:09 PM
^^ recent data show that about one third of law graduates in America do not pursue careers practicing law. My wife got her law degree, quit after one year because she was so miserable in law, stayed in the profession in a different role, as a law school dean.

adamX012
10-29-2011, 07:03 PM
OP, going to law school doesn't mean they would get a good job.

atatu
10-29-2011, 07:39 PM
+1 on getting good grades....and if you don't get good grades, make sure you take an LSAT prep course like Kaplan. My grades were only average, but I scored in the top 98% on my LSAT, so that saved me.

Agent Orynge
10-29-2011, 08:01 PM
Don't scare the guy too much. A degree isn't a guarantee of a job in any field these days, but I thnk it's better to have some direction from the start than dither in uncertainty for years on end. Focus really is the key. Now, most people do switch majors at some point during their academic career, so OP has to be open to the possibility of finding something he's more passionate about throughout his elective course work.

Cindysphinx
10-29-2011, 08:20 PM
1. Get excellent grades.

2. Get an excellent LSAT score.

3. Become an excellent and speedy writer (and public speaker if you want to be a litigator or trial lawyer) by taking a lot of writing courses in college.

4. Get into the very best law school you can get into. It can be very difficult to get a job otherwise.

MAXXply
10-29-2011, 08:27 PM
Slightly off-topic, but can anyone recommend some effective (law) exam studying tips for procrastinators like me? (Focussing on time-management and avoiding distractions)
The volume of material isn't that much (two subjects only) but exams commence in two weeks and I feel overwhelmed in an under-prepared sense.

The fact I'm about to log-off and head to the tennis courts for a few hours may be indicative of my priorities...

GuyClinch
10-29-2011, 08:50 PM
Don't do it - pick some degree that the US actually needs. Law schools are pratically criminal - training way more lawyers then are needed. Sorry but someone had to say it..

flyinghippos101
10-29-2011, 09:20 PM
Well I'm Canadian if that helps

autumn_leaf
10-29-2011, 09:33 PM
^^ I don't know if it helps or not. There are many types of lawyers. Many people think of the court attorneys, but there are also some such as copyright lawyers.

You never said what you wanted to be in the law field. Planning to fight the good fight? Or just being a corporate lawyer?

And GuyClinch is right, though wrong in the fact that he thought he was the first one to point it out. We have already stated that schools are more like degree mills these days.

Many articles do point out MBA and Law students fund the majority of a universities budget. Meaning because of these two programs the university is able to run. Think about what you get as a law student...a classroom with a professor. That must be one hell of professor for you to pay 50k+ a year for. This field is one of the least costly to the university, compare to say the sciences which needs state of the art lab equipment, law students get a chair and a table while the scientists play with their multi-million dollar lasers and such for top universities.

eliza
10-30-2011, 06:13 AM
DO NOT DO IT!!! STOP BEFORE YOU CAN, AND PAUSE!!!!!
You are going to jeopardize your tennis, your friendships, your life. Assuming you can get through it saving some of your mental sanity, you will lose it by working 80hrs per week included holidays.....Add that all your friends and relatives will suddendly ask you for free advice.......
There are many jobs out there. Get a normal one, and keep playing tennis now that you are young!!!!!!

eliza
10-30-2011, 06:16 AM
Don't do it - pick some degree that the US actually needs. Law schools are pratically criminal - training way more lawyers then are needed. Sorry but someone had to say it..

Not only the US, unfortunately. But the US has way toooo many incompetent and improvised "attorneys", licensed to legally s.... people......

Torres
10-30-2011, 06:27 AM
Criminal defense work is the absolute bottom of the food chain in terms of legal work. Horrible work, horrible clients....I can't think of a worse job in the legal sector.

MAXXply
10-30-2011, 06:39 AM
Criminal defense work is the absolute bottom of the food chain in terms of legal work. Horrible work, horrible clients....I can't think of a worse job in the legal sector.

I'm kind of thinking this is where I wanna go, if only for the regularity of work...I like to think I'm a pretty dispassionate ******* when it comes to defending hardluck petty crims but what would I know? I saw a young public defender in court one day thinking she was totally clueless and that I could do a better job, then I discover a week later she would be teaching my Crim II subject and she was a University Medallist...I need to do my Clinical Experience first and get a taste for it...

r2473
10-30-2011, 07:20 AM
Uh guys, the OP is a first year university student. EVERYONE is either pre-med or pre-law (whatever the f*** pre-law means).

Torres
10-30-2011, 07:30 AM
I'm kind of thinking this is where I wanna go, if only for the regularity of work...I like to think I'm a pretty dispassionate ******* when it comes to defending hardluck petty crims but what would I know? I saw a young public defender in court one day thinking she was totally clueless and that I could do a better job, then I discover a week later she would be teaching my Crim II subject and she was a University Medallist...I need to do my Clinical Experience first and get a taste for it...

It's very low quality work. High volume, limited resources, low pay, low standards, limited resources, poor training.....it really attracts only the poorest quality practitioners 99.9% of the time. The other 0.1% do it for a time before realising that there are better things to do. Don't fogret those even with 'clued up' practitioners, high volume of work + limited time resources will turn them into a 'cluessless' practitioner. Unless you have a extraordinary passion for criminal defense work - and I really do mean extraordinary passion - and have the psychological makeup to cope with tons of low quality dross, there really are alot better careers out there.

Fifth Set
10-30-2011, 07:39 AM
OP, don't be too alarmed by the responses. Yes, there are alot of unhappy lawyers out there, but there are alot of lawyers period. So, you're dealing with a huge sample size.

The reality is that a law degree, like an MBA, can open many doors and take you in many different directions. Some better than others.

What I would recommend is to focus less on what kind of law you want to practice (pretty early for that) and more on what you need to do to get into a top law school. There is some good advice here around that.

A couple other things that haven't been mentioned:

Consider getting a job in business for a couple years before applying to graduate school. Yes, it will probably be a junior level job, but if you can swing something better than an admin role, it will set your applications apart from others and provide you with some very valuable real world context in your studies.

Also consider getting a joint degree. At least in the US (I imagine Canada is the same), adding an MBA to a JD is only one extra year. It may not seem relevant to criminal law, but remember, the goal of your education is to open doors, not limit them. There are other joint degree options, such a Masters in Public Policy.

flyinghippos101
10-30-2011, 08:15 AM
I want to go into criminal law but not be a defence attorney. I'm more interested in working with the crown attorney. I was considering other fields like corporate law or tort law, but doesn't seem very rewarding to me imo.

Torres
10-30-2011, 09:10 AM
As Steve Jobs once said, "Find a job that you love."

Personally, I think criminal law is a load of gash unless you love defending drug dealers, car thieves, wife beaters, gang bangers, or have the authoritarian streak to love putting such types behind bars. It really is a particular kind of job for a particular type of person.

Fifth Set
10-30-2011, 11:11 AM
As Steve Jobs once said, "Find a job that you love."

Personally, I think criminal law is a load of gash unless you love defending drug dealers, car thieves, wife beaters, gang bangers, or have the authoritarian streak to love putting such types behind bars. It really is a particular kind of job for a particular type of person.

If you're at all interested in advising the OP, you might want to actually read his posts.

He would be much more inclined to be a DA, which means trying to put all of these losers in jail where they belong - something he might well in fact love.

r2473
10-30-2011, 11:54 AM
As Steve Jobs once said, "Find a job that you love."

Personally, I think criminal law is a load of gash unless you love defending alleged drug dealers, car thieves, wife beaters, gang bangers,

Thing is, they are all innocent

Torres
10-30-2011, 11:57 AM
If you're at all interested in advising the OP, you might want to actually read his posts.

He would be much more inclined to be a DA, which means trying to put all of these losers in jail where they belong - something he might well in fact love.

Are you an attorney? Because the impression you give of your understanding of criminal law and practice comes across as more 'LA Law' and 'Law and Order' rather than the reality of life at the bar.

Everytime I hear a student say they want to be a criminal attorney, I start laughing because the cliched thing you can say.

Fifth Set
10-30-2011, 12:24 PM
Are you an attorney? Because the impression you give of your understanding of criminal law and practice comes across as more 'LA Law' and 'Law and Order' rather than the reality of life at the bar.

Everytime I hear a student say they want to be a criminal attorney, I start laughing because the cliched thing you can say.

LOL, since this posts suggests that you are in fact a criminal attorney, I can only assume that you're not a very good one - since you're convinced that the life, work, skills, outlook, morals, etc. of a prosecutor is the same as that of a defender.

God help any defendants who have the misfortune to get stuck with your representation!

Torres
10-30-2011, 12:27 PM
LOL, since this posts suggests that you are in fact a criminal attorney, I can only assume that you're not a very good one - since you're convinced that the life, work, skills, outlook, morals, etc. of a prosecutor is the same as that of a defender.

God help any defendants who have the misfortune to get stuck with your representation!

In-house Counsel for a very well known global FMCG.

So try again.

(Or better still, try giving advice in a thread that you might know something about).

Fifth Set
10-30-2011, 12:32 PM
In-house Counsel for a very well known global FMCG.

So try again.

(Or better still, try giving advice in a thread that you might know something about).

:confused: Let's just say that your experience making sure that the Charmin doesn't get squeezed too aggressively certainly gives you no more authority than anyone else here to give advice to aspiring lawyers. :twisted:

Torres
10-30-2011, 12:49 PM
:confused: Let's just say that your experience making sure that the Charmin doesn't get squeezed too aggressively certainly gives you no more authority than anyone else here to give advice to aspiring lawyers. :twisted:

More experience, more authority and more knowledge than what you seem to possess.

I suspect that its really going to gall when I tell you have I've had responsibilty for recruitment and selection of lawyers at my current place of place, at previous places of work, including the recruitment of lawyers as well as University graduates.....

RoddickAce
10-30-2011, 12:52 PM
@OP, I understand how you feel. It's a tough decision, but if this is what you are passionate about, then you will be able to apply yourself very well and succeed.

@Individuals in the legal industry. Is it true (in your respective geographical areas) that the legal industry is very saturated with litigators, but there are a lot more opportunities if you want to pursue a career in legal advisory services?

Fifth Set
10-30-2011, 12:57 PM
More experience, more authority and more knowledge than what you seem to possess.

I suspect that its really going to gall when I tell you have I've had responsibilty for recruitment and selection of lawyers at my current place of place, at previous places of work, including the recruitment of lawyers as well as University graduates.....

Whatever you say counselor. While you dance around your corner office high fiving yourself, the rest of us will watch this video in the hope that we can understand the difference between criminal prosecution and defense as well as you clearly do. :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCag_aRx8Hk

Torres
10-30-2011, 01:01 PM
the rest of us will watch this video in the hope that we can understand the difference between criminal prosecution and defense as well as you clearly do.

Whatever makes you happy.....because you're not adding anything useful to this thread.

Cindysphinx
10-30-2011, 01:17 PM
LOL, since this posts suggests that you are in fact a criminal attorney, I can only assume that you're not a very good one - since you're convinced that the life, work, skills, outlook, morals, etc. of a prosecutor is the same as that of a defender.

God help any defendants who have the misfortune to get stuck with your representation!
Just so you know, being a prosecutor is pretty icky also. Lots of pressure to convict, so you can lose perspective.

Also, one thing you don't get a sense for from TV is that defendants are people too. It is hard to see someone be sentenced and see the angish of their family. It doesn't make you feel like going out to celebrate.

Whether you are defense or prosecution, the criminal world is icky and not at all as glamorous as many think. Many criminal lawyers burn out. But if OP is sure this is his calling, then he needs to get into a top school so he can be a federal prosecutor. Which means he will likely spend a lot of time putting drug mules behind bars.

Fifth Set
10-30-2011, 01:27 PM
@Individuals in the legal industry. Is it true (in your respective geographical areas) that the legal industry is very saturated with litigators, but there are a lot more opportunities if you want to pursue a career in legal advisory services?

This is generally true and even more relevant if you define "legal advisory services" more like "using skills and experience gained from law to be a leader."

Want to be President of the USA? Most of late have been lawyers.

Like sports? The commissioners of two of the four major professional sports leagues are lawyers.

Agent Orynge
10-30-2011, 03:08 PM
If you're at all interested in advising the OP, you might want to actually read his posts.

He would be much more inclined to be a DA, which means trying to put all of these losers in jail where they belong - something he might well in fact love.

I can't help but feel that your credibility here is severely diminished, if only because we don't know what you do for a living. Torres says he's a lawyer, but you've been fairly mum about your academic/professional experience. So, from an outsider's perspective, I really have no choice but to side with Torres here. That having been said, what exactly is your experience in these matters?

Fifth Set
10-30-2011, 03:25 PM
I can't help but feel that your credibility here is severely diminished, if only because we don't know what you do for a living. Torres says he's a lawyer, but you've been fairly mum about your academic/professional experience. So, from an outsider's perspective, I really have no choice but to side with Torres here. That having been said, what exactly is your experience in these matters?

Ha ha, you "side with" whomever you want honey. I comment only on those things I know something about and call 'em like I see 'em, including when people give lame advice that arises from thoroughly ignoring an OP's posts.

If mere claims of occupation/expertise are either important or sufficient for you to establish "credibility" on an anonymous forum, then that is your problem, not mine, the OP's or anyone else's. You should ask to see a picture of posters with their bar membership card visible. Good luck with that.

I'm trying to provide perspective to those who are asking for it. You can do the same or, like Torres, go down rat holes.

Cindysphinx
10-30-2011, 04:46 PM
Ha ha, you "side with" whomever you want honey. I comment only on those things I know something about and call 'em like I see 'em, including when people give lame advice that arises from thoroughly ignoring an OP's posts.

If mere claims of occupation/expertise are either important or sufficient for you to establish "credibility" on an anonymous forum, then that is your problem, not mine, the OP's or anyone else's. You should ask to see a picture of posters with their bar membership card visible. Good luck with that.

I'm trying to provide perspective to those who are asking for it. You can do the same or, like Torres, go down rat holes.
Translation: "I have no idea what I am talking about and I am not an attorney."

Fifth Set
10-30-2011, 05:20 PM
Wow.

I find it quite fascinating that at least three of you claiming to be attorneys (since Cindy revealed her actual identity in another thread, the state bar's web-site could easily confirm it if anyone actually cared - I don't) are so offended by the mere possibility that someone might be giving career advice (not legal advice) to a first year undergraduate without a "license."

Let's assume for a minute that I'm not an attorney and never have been. What if I'm actually a court reporter with 20 years experience in the criminal courts? Or a baliff? What if I'm a service provider to criminal lawyers, such as a private investigator or psychiatrist?

Then would I be permitted to post in this thread? :)

Agent Orynge
10-30-2011, 06:07 PM
Ha ha, you "side with" whomever you want honey. I comment only on those things I know something about and call 'em like I see 'em, including when people give lame advice that arises from thoroughly ignoring an OP's posts.

If mere claims of occupation/expertise are either important or sufficient for you to establish "credibility" on an anonymous forum, then that is your problem, not mine, the OP's or anyone else's. You should ask to see a picture of posters with their bar membership card visible. Good luck with that.

I'm trying to provide perspective to those who are asking for it. You can do the same or, like Torres, go down rat holes.

Actually, honey, it's your problem. You're offering advice because you assume people want it, but no one - not OP, and certainly not myself - is going to listen to you with that kind of attitude. I was playing nice because I thought you had something to offer, but you're going to find yourself more than a little outgunned if you dive face first into an argument with a subject matter expert. You can posture all you want, a lawyer is going to know more about his own craft than an outsider, even if we're not talking about his particular focus. So yes, Torres and Cindy are subject matter experts, and yes, I'll take their word over yours any day. I'm still waiting for you to tell us what it is you do for a living, but since you refuse to be forthcoming, I'm just going to go ahead and assume you're a garbage collector. All the more reason to ignore you, garbage collector.

You can keep "callin' em like you see 'em" if it makes you feel important, but it's just wasted time and energy as far as the rest of us are concerned.

Cindysphinx
10-30-2011, 06:58 PM
Wow.

I find it quite fascinating that at least three of you claiming to be attorneys (since Cindy revealed her actual identity in another thread, the state bar's web-site could easily confirm it if anyone actually cared - I don't) are so offended by the mere possibility that someone might be giving career advice (not legal advice) to a first year undergraduate without a "license."

Let's assume for a minute that I'm not an attorney and never have been. What if I'm actually a court reporter with 20 years experience in the criminal courts? Or a baliff? What if I'm a service provider to criminal lawyers, such as a private investigator or psychiatrist?

Then would I be permitted to post in this thread? :)

Yes, let's assume for a minute that you are not a lawyer. 'Cause it is pretty clear that you are not.

If you think a court reporter with 20 years of experience in criminal courts (whoops -- a court reporter would most likely work in courts that handle both criminal and civil cases) would be able to advise on what a career in criminal law is like, you would be mistaken. Just as I would have little idea what the life of a court reporter is like just because I have appeared in court sometimes.

Even more off the mark is the idea that a PI or psychiatrist has a clue what the day-to-day grind of legal practice is like.

Look, I know you meant well. Just understand that someone with personal experience may know more than you.

Cindy -- not about to dive into a discussion about whether someone should go to medical school but who would read with interest

SoBad
10-30-2011, 07:05 PM
As a layman, I don’t know anything about law, especially in Canada, but good grades and high LSAT scores will likely go a long way – perhaps reading the admission FAQs on your target schools’ websites will give you a better idea though than the discussion in this thread.

Go for the criminal arena if that’s your passion, but a career in prosecution does seem like a bit of an odd dream for a college freshman – sure, you get to play God a little bit, but at the end of the day you are still a puppet in the hands of dirty politicians, inevitably overworked in an effort to supplement your meager public salary with bribes. As a defender (in the U.S. at least), you would be at the forefront of the fight to protect the Constitution and the rights of the ordinary citizens from the police and the state, take pride and satisfaction in your work as you help the innocent folks get through their ordeals bestowed upon them by the malicious prosecutors, and have an opportunity to be compensated fairly and legally for the good work that you do, and generously perhaps, if you do a good job.

Fifth Set
10-30-2011, 09:50 PM
...Torres and Cindy are subject matter experts...

Hmmm....Torres the corporate lawyer a subject matter expert on criminal law.

Sounds like malpractice to me. But, I wouldn't know. Right?

Agent Orynge
10-30-2011, 10:38 PM
Hmmm....Torres the corporate lawyer a subject matter expert on criminal law.

Sounds like malpractice to me. But, I wouldn't know. Right?

I like how you completely ignored the sentence right before that.

"...a lawyer is going to know more about his own craft than an outsider, even if we're not talking about his particular focus."

How much law did they teach you at garbage collector school?

Fifth Set
10-30-2011, 11:09 PM
...not about to dive into a discussion about whether someone should go to medical school...

Now we are actually getting somewhere interesting. I'm all for folks commenting on those things that we actually know about. You won't see me chiming in your threads about the fit of women's tennis outfits. Likewise, I don't see you in the best legs thread, commenting on which female players have the best boobs.

As I said before, I comment on those things about which I have some knowledge. In this case, at least as much as the corporate lawyer (who cluelessly slammed the OP's pursuit of criminal defense work, right after the OP said he wanted to be a prosecutor!).

While I respect your willingness to "out yourself" (and voted for you several times in your campaign), it's not for everyone. Indeed, I actually think it weakens the back and forth when folks feel the need to preface every post with, "I know this because it's what I do for a living / my daddy lived there for 10 years / my brother works at company X..."

So, you won't see it from me. If that means you don't read a word I write, that's certainly your right.

OTMPut
10-30-2011, 11:21 PM
relax ladies and gentlemen, will you?

anyone can give advice on anything. i doubt there is anything written down in any book of wisdom or religious dogma that it cannot be done.

it is OP's job to sort sh1t out. his fault he asked advice in an internet forum (a tennis forum!).

Cindysphinx
10-31-2011, 03:52 AM
Fifth Sense, no hard feelings. I think it is important to preface one's advice with "I'm not a lawyer but . . . .". Seems only fair to OP and goes a long way toward helping people know where you are coming from.

To anyone aspiring to practice criminal law . . . . Spend some time at the courts watching trials. You will quickly gain an appreciation for how it differs from TV. Especially in the case of civil trials, you will also quickly gain an understanding of why jurors sometimes fall asleep!

SlapShot
10-31-2011, 07:19 AM
Fifth Sense, no hard feelings. I think it is important to preface one's advice with "I'm not a lawyer but . . . .". Seems only fair to OP and goes a long way toward helping people know where you are coming from.

To anyone aspiring to practice criminal law . . . . Spend some time at the courts watching trials. You will quickly gain an appreciation for how it differs from TV. Especially in the case of civil trials, you will also quickly gain an understanding of why jurors sometimes fall asleep!

Agreed 100% on both accounts.

I was dead-set on going into corporate law out of undergrad. Majored in legal studies in business (basic business degree with a heavier emphasis on contract law, interstate/international commerce, and negotiation). I'm now pursuing my MBA in finance instead.

Why?

Because, for one, Minnesota has WAY more lawyers than we have jobs for lawyers. Along with that, after much soul searching, I had more desire to be heavily involved on the business front rather than the legal front.

If you decide that it's what you want to do, lots of good advice here - spend time studying, and think heavily about majoring or minoring in an area that gives you a "fallback" if the law school thing ends up not being your cup of tea. I bet a minor in business would be 4-5 classes, and what you learn there could be applied basically anywhere. The suggestion for engineering was a good one too - I know it sounds dry, but patent/IP law is a growing field, and one that offers a healthy payday for those lawyers that can get into the science end of things.

Kevin T
10-31-2011, 08:34 AM
Not a lawyer (or even interested) but to add to Slapshot's post, my cousin's fiance recently graduated from UC-Berk law school (top 10). His interest is environmental law and it took him 7 months to find a job, currently working in asbestos litigation. Far from what he wants to do but he was just glad to get a job in the bay area. He says the market is incredibly saturated.

r2473
10-31-2011, 10:18 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM

GuyClinch
10-31-2011, 06:35 PM
The problem is the law profession (and the schools and professors) kind of positioned themselves as a 'alternative' to being a doctor.

Thus so many kids going into school think - well if I can't/don't want to be a doctor - I will be a lawyer. But the problem is while we need more Doctors - there are PLENTY of lawyers and the schools continue to crank them out because so many people believe in the fiction as Doctors = Lawyers and those are the two best jobs.

It's not like the law schools scale back and say - well we are only going to offer 10,000 slots because that's all the lawyers we need. Hell even the government does that as they set the number of graduates at West Point to the number of officers they will need. (duh).


But with law school - if you PAY the money - you can go to law school somewhere. Anyway this whole idea of 'pre-law' needs to go out the window. We need to fund people to get degrees in things america needs - and discourage them from getting degrees in oversaturated fields..

This is common sense. It's not anti lawyer talk. We should not be stringing them along into something like law - which is not only oversaturated by according to the lawyers I know not terribly rewarding.

You know how you have go through all that paper work to sign up for things - and you hate it. Well that's kinda like what lawyers have to do all the time.. Think about it..

I tried to talk my dumb-*** brother out of going into law. But OH NO - the guy had to do it and still hasn't gotten a job even remotely related to law years afterwards. It's a big waste of time.

They take your money and suck you in. And don't believe the opening doors crap. You can open doors with an engineering degree too let me tell ya.

Crazy man
10-31-2011, 06:41 PM
The guy above me said it the best. Not enough jobs. So many people I know took Law at college and University. Can't really see them doing much although I hope I'm worng. Not only that but Law is definately one of the harder topics to learn.





Be who you want to be. I didn't really get a choice. My parents basically told me last year what I should do at University.

junbumkim
10-31-2011, 07:09 PM
I think you should try to find out what it is like to work as a procecutor or whatever type of attorney you want to become. The best way maybe to do an internship or to speak to someone in the field. Like people have said, a lot of people do realize that the law career is not for them whether the reason is the nature of the work, the hours you have to put in, etc.

The best story I heard was about my friend's dad, who graduated from the law school, quit after one day at the job, and ended up going to to med school.

Fifth Set
10-31-2011, 07:17 PM
anyone can give advice on anything. i doubt there is anything written down in any book of wisdom or religious dogma that it cannot be done.


I would love to agree with you but keep in mind that the main purpose of the state bars is to PREVENT non-lawyers from giving advice. It's a cartel, trying to convince people that lawyers are just like brain surgeons.

The BS you see in this thread is actually a perfect metaphor for real life of dealing with lawyers. This gang went ballistic when they suspected a non-lawyer was giving CAREER advice to a prospective law student. Can you imagine if the topic of the thread was instead about the finer points of diversity jurisdiction or why the venue clause of a contract could be important? Torres and Cindy would have had heart attacks!

Same thing in real life. The cartel seeks to keep people from signing anything at all without paying $800 per hour to someone with lots of education, but far fewer tangible skills than even a mediocre doctor.

What's worse, just like in this thread (where I was the only one to call Torres out for his completely off base advice), the cartel tries to protect its incompetents more often than it will expose and disbar them.

It's no wonder that respect for lawyers is at an all time low. THAT is one of the biggest negatives to consider when thinking about law school.

Agent Orynge
10-31-2011, 07:28 PM
I would love to agree with you but keep in mind that the main purpose of the state bars is to PREVENT non-lawyers from giving advice. It's a cartel, trying to convince people that lawyers are just like brain surgeons.

The BS you see in this thread is actually a perfect metaphor for real life of dealing with lawyers. This gang went ballistic when they suspected a non-lawyer was giving CAREER advice to a prospective law student. Can you imagine if the topic of the thread was instead about the finer points of diversity jurisdiction or why the venue clause of a contract could be important? Torres and Cindy would have had heart attacks!

Same thing in real life. The cartel seeks to keep people from signing anything at all without paying $800 per hour to someone with lots of education, but far fewer tangible skills than even a mediocre doctor.

What's worse, just like in this thread (where I was the only one to call Torres out for his completely off base advice), the cartel tries to protect its incompetents more often than it will expose and disbar them.

It's no wonder that respect for lawyers is at an all time low. THAT is one of the biggest negatives to consider when thinking about law school.

This a complete misrepresentation of what happened in this thread. You barged in with the "I know more about law than you do" attitude, did your very best to discredit those that are actually involved in the legal realm, and still have yet to tell us what it is that gives you such superior insights.

adamX012
10-31-2011, 10:26 PM
Hey posters in the thread, can you just move on with the topic. It's nothing wrong with being a lawyer or not a lawyer to post their comments. Best wishes to all.

Cindysphinx
11-01-2011, 06:05 AM
Can you imagine if the topic of the thread was instead about the finer points of diversity jurisdiction or why the venue clause of a contract could be important? Torres and Cindy would have had heart attacks!


Yes, let's discuss the "finer points of diversity jurisdiction or why the venue clause of a contract could be important."

You go first. :)

flyinghippos101
11-01-2011, 01:06 PM
Just taking a look at some of these posts. A big thanks to the users that took the time to respond. You guys gave me a ton of great advice. Sort of disappointed at the direction this thread went; but then again, it's TT and the internet.

LuckyR
11-01-2011, 01:07 PM
The idea that a Profession would try to regulate who gets into the Profession is somehow controversial? Perhaps someone ought to look up the definition of profession. If anyone can become one, it's not a profession, it's a job...

rdis10093
11-01-2011, 01:19 PM
two guys in my house are going into law school next year.

Cindysphinx
11-01-2011, 01:32 PM
Fun fact: When I lived in California, I decided to make some extra money while on maternity leave by becoming an essay grader for the California Bar Exam. (At that time, the exam was three days, two of which were devoted to essays). I applied and was accepted. I never graded an actual bar exam because we moved away, so all I know about is the training.

The way it worked was that you attended some sessions in which they explained how they wanted things done and what the "right" answers were. Then they gave you actual exam answers from prior exams and you were supposed to score them. Your scores needed to be close to the actual score the essay received.

I was shocked at some of the answers candidates for admission to the bar wrote.

There were essays in which it was clear the person couldn't put two sentences together.

A lot of people simply went through a mental checklist of every legal issue they could think of, regardless of whether it was related to the question. They had memorized the cheat sheet, by golly, and they were going to use it. This was not a good strategy to rack up points.

The people I remember most vividly were the people who ended their unfortunate essay with, "PLEASE DON'T FAIL ME! I'LL LOSE MY JOB!! I HAVE TWO KIDS TO SUPPORT!!" There were more of these than I would have imagined.

So, OP. When you get through the LSAT and law school and are seated for the exam, don't spend your time writing a plea. It won't help.

Cindy -- who never saw a quality essay that ended with a plea for mercy

borg number one
11-01-2011, 07:55 PM
I really found the Philosophy courses I took to be helpful in law school. In addition, I would recommend extra courses in Government, History, and Political Science. Take plenty of courses that will help with reading comprehension and your writing skills. You will need to develop the ability to read and comprehend new material quickly, process it well, and then write about what you read and understood (analysis). Those will be key skills to develop for the LSAT and beyond.During college, look for opportunities to hone your communication skills (writing/speaking) as well as reading ability. It'll be a tough haul, but it can be well worth it.

OTMPut
11-01-2011, 08:25 PM
Fun fact: When I lived in California, I decided to make some extra money while on maternity leave by becoming an essay grader for the California Bar Exam. (At that time, the exam was three days, two of which were devoted to essays). I applied and was accepted. I never graded an actual bar exam because we moved away, so all I know about is the training.

The way it worked was that you attended some sessions in which they explained how they wanted things done and what the "right" answers were. Then they gave you actual exam answers from prior exams and you were supposed to score them. Your scores needed to be close to the actual score the essay received.

I was shocked at some of the answers candidates for admission to the bar wrote.

There were essays in which it was clear the person couldn't put two sentences together.

A lot of people simply went through a mental checklist of every legal issue they could think of, regardless of whether it was related to the question. They had memorized the cheat sheet, by golly, and they were going to use it. This was not a good strategy to rack up points.

The people I remember most vividly were the people who ended their unfortunate essay with, "PLEASE DON'T FAIL ME! I'LL LOSE MY JOB!! I HAVE TWO KIDS TO SUPPORT!!" There were more of these than I would have imagined.

So, OP. When you get through the LSAT and law school and are seated for the exam, don't spend your time writing a plea. It won't help.

Cindy -- who never saw a quality essay that ended with a plea for mercy

did you have to write an essay? may be you could share it. TTers can grade it. that will be a GOAT thread.

thug the bunny
11-02-2011, 06:51 AM
Fun fact: When I lived in California, I decided to make some extra money while on maternity leave by becoming an essay grader for the California Bar Exam. (At that time, the exam was three days, two of which were devoted to essays). I applied and was accepted. I never graded an actual bar exam because we moved away, so all I know about is the training.

The way it worked was that you attended some sessions in which they explained how they wanted things done and what the "right" answers were. Then they gave you actual exam answers from prior exams and you were supposed to score them. Your scores needed to be close to the actual score the essay received.

I was shocked at some of the answers candidates for admission to the bar wrote.

There were essays in which it was clear the person couldn't put two sentences together.

A lot of people simply went through a mental checklist of every legal issue they could think of, regardless of whether it was related to the question. They had memorized the cheat sheet, by golly, and they were going to use it. This was not a good strategy to rack up points.

The people I remember most vividly were the people who ended their unfortunate essay with, "PLEASE DON'T FAIL ME! I'LL LOSE MY JOB!! I HAVE TWO KIDS TO SUPPORT!!" There were more of these than I would have imagined.

So, OP. When you get through the LSAT and law school and are seated for the exam, don't spend your time writing a plea. It won't help.

Cindy -- who never saw a quality essay that ended with a plea for mercy

When I lived in Cali, I testified as an expert witness for the prosecution in a number of criminal trials, and I was always amazed at the overall lack of skills on both sides of the ball. Very little understanding of forensics. Usually they did not ask the right questions to make their points. Poor reasoning and logic. It was an eye opener for me.

Fearsome Forehand
11-02-2011, 11:01 AM
Perhaps the essayists in question were attempting to display their expert skills in the fine art of obfuscation.

Future defense attorneys, no doubt. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPDBeoUGnYE&feature=related

Cindysphinx
11-02-2011, 12:37 PM
When I lived in Cali, I testified as an expert witness for the prosecution in a number of criminal trials, and I was always amazed at the overall lack of skills on both sides of the ball. Very little understanding of forensics. Usually they did not ask the right questions to make their points. Poor reasoning and logic. It was an eye opener for me.

Hey, cross-examination is amazingly difficult. You cannot believe how hard it is until you try it. You have a million ideas flying around in your head, and you have to get a hostile person to say what you want?

Then add in how overworked defense and prosecuting attorneys are and you have a recipe for some seriously bad witness handling.

OMTput, I had to do essay answers like everyone else on the bar. During breaks, the Most Annoying People In The World would discuss what they had just written in their essays. This would cause me to realize I had missed this or that issue and to then fret about it for the next six months until the results came out.

It has been 25 years since I wrote them, but to this day I can remember one thing I missed on the criminal law essay: Larceny by trick. :shudder:

thug the bunny
11-03-2011, 10:50 AM
Hey, cross-examination is amazingly difficult. You cannot believe how hard it is until you try it. You have a million ideas flying around in your head, and you have to get a hostile person to say what you want?

Then add in how overworked defense and prosecuting attorneys are and you have a recipe for some seriously bad witness handling.

OMTput, I had to do essay answers like everyone else on the bar. During breaks, the Most Annoying People In The World would discuss what they had just written in their essays. This would cause me to realize I had missed this or that issue and to then fret about it for the next six months until the results came out.

It has been 25 years since I wrote them, but to this day I can remember one thing I missed on the criminal law essay: Larceny by trick. :shudder:

I understand crossing must be pretty tough, but I remember sitting down with prosecutors pre-trial and going over what they were going to ask, and then during my testimony they would forget to ask the important ones, or screw up the order, like giving a punch line before the body of the joke. And afterwards both of us ended up looking like idiots.

Cindysphinx
11-03-2011, 11:44 AM
I understand crossing must be pretty tough, but I remember sitting down with prosecutors pre-trial and going over what they were going to ask, and then during my testimony they would forget to ask the important ones, or screw up the order, like giving a punch line before the body of the joke. And afterwards both of us ended up looking like idiots.

You know all that nodding the prosecutors did during the meeting?

They didn't understand a word that was coming out of your mouth. :)

thug the bunny
11-03-2011, 12:00 PM
You got that right Cindy. But at the same time, you don't want to insult a 40 yr old professional by asking, "so, are you sure you understand how the indentity of this compound is confirmed by orthagonal analyses?" In any case, he would just nod again, "oh yeah, I got that one down..."

FloridaAG
11-03-2011, 12:02 PM
Good grades and high LSAT score, that is really all you need for admission.

At least it was back in my day, says this NYU Law alum

borg number one
11-03-2011, 12:07 PM
Cases often become a battle of experts, both on the civil side and criminal side. Experts do disagree, even when they are excellent in their respective fields. Thugbunny, it sounds like you were working with a prosecutor that was not listening very well. If the prosecutor really didn't get your argument, did you not see the court filings? What's difficult for lawyers is that you have to depend on a jury to comprehend an expert's argument and accept it. Of course, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt with a criminal case and by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil case. It's a adversarial system, so what they are doing is not as easy as it may appear. Yet, I do agree that if someone didn't understand technical testimony, they should let you know. It's really a team effort with the lawyer working with an expert.

FloridaAG
11-03-2011, 12:07 PM
Ironically, the prosecutors and state (public) defenders are frequently the least intelligent and capable law school grads, who go on to get the most trial experience and thus develop certain skills far more rapidly than those that are more inteliigent and capable than themselves.

BreakPoint
11-03-2011, 12:25 PM
I've heard unemployment and underemployment are the highest for people with law degrees.

borg number one
11-03-2011, 12:29 PM
Three big pluses to being a lawyer:

1. You can really make a difference and help people.
2. Unlimited income potential. No top end.
3. You can always hang out your own shingle and work for yourself.

Here's a job outlook for lawyers.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm

Employment change. Employment of lawyers is expected to grow 13 percent during the 2008-18 decade, about as fast as the average for all occupations. Growth in the population and in the level of business activity is expected to create more legal transactions, civil disputes, and criminal cases. Job growth among lawyers also will result from increasing demand for legal services in such areas as healthcare, intellectual property, bankruptcy, corporate and security litigation, antitrust law, and environmental law. In addition, the wider availability and affordability of legal clinics should result in increased use of legal services by middle-income people. However, growth in demand for lawyers will be constrained as businesses increasingly use large accounting firms and paralegals to perform some of the same functions that lawyers do. For example, accounting firms may provide employee-benefit counseling, process documents, or handle various other services previously performed by a law firm. Also, mediation and dispute resolution are increasingly being used as alternatives to litigation.

Job growth for lawyers will continue to be concentrated in salaried jobs as businesses and all levels of government employ a growing number of staff attorneys. Most salaried positions are in urban areas where government agencies, law firms, and big corporations are concentrated. The number of self-employed lawyers is expected to grow slowly, reflecting the difficulty of establishing a profitable new practice in the face of competition from larger, established law firms. Moreover, the growing complexity of the law, which encourages specialization, along with the cost of maintaining up-to-date legal research materials, favors larger firms.

WhiteStripes
11-03-2011, 01:36 PM
As someone who's spent most of his adult life working as a litigator in large law firms in NYC, DC, and CA, all I have to say is... friends don't let friends go to law school. But if you really want to be a lawyer, I'll echo what some others have said in getting the highest GPA and LSAT scores you can since that's basically all law schools look at... and definitely try to go to the best law school you can get into, especially if you want to land a job at the big-name, high-paying large law firms since they're typically elitist in who they recruit.

goober
11-04-2011, 07:39 AM
The problem is the law profession (and the schools and professors) kind of positioned themselves as a 'alternative' to being a doctor.

Thus so many kids going into school think - well if I can't/don't want to be a doctor - I will be a lawyer. But the problem is while we need more Doctors - there are PLENTY of lawyers and the schools continue to crank them out because so many people believe in the fiction as Doctors = Lawyers and those are the two best jobs.

It's not like the law schools scale back and say - well we are only going to offer 10,000 slots because that's all the lawyers we need. Hell even the government does that as they set the number of graduates at West Point to the number of officers they will need. (duh).


But with law school - if you PAY the money - you can go to law school somewhere. Anyway this whole idea of 'pre-law' needs to go out the window. We need to fund people to get degrees in things america needs - and discourage them from getting degrees in oversaturated fields..

This is common sense. It's not anti lawyer talk. We should not be stringing them along into something like law - which is not only oversaturated by according to the lawyers I know not terribly rewarding.

You know how you have go through all that paper work to sign up for things - and you hate it. Well that's kinda like what lawyers have to do all the time.. Think about it..

I tried to talk my dumb-*** brother out of going into law. But OH NO - the guy had to do it and still hasn't gotten a job even remotely related to law years afterwards. It's a big waste of time.

They take your money and suck you in. And don't believe the opening doors crap. You can open doors with an engineering degree too let me tell ya.


I have heard pretty much the same thing, especially from recent law grads. Basically unless you go to a high profile school you are going to have a hard time finding a job when you graduate unless you have some kind of connections. Law grads from middle of the road schools and lesser name schools are going to have a huge amount of debt and pretty good chance of no job when they graduate.

FloridaAG
11-04-2011, 08:06 AM
It is far more difficult to get into medical school than law school. Whether or not there is a need for more doctors, there are far fewer med school spots available.

borg number one
11-04-2011, 02:44 PM
The supply and demand for lawyers isn't going to change drastically anytime soon. Overall, we need more students to pursue careers in engineering and science, but we'll see how trends go. Overall, there is a shortage of family practitioners/internal medicine physicians in rural areas, but a large percentage of medical students still pursue higher paying specialties in urban areas. Years ago, a law degree would guarantee you a high salary and a safe career. Yet, that's no longer the case.

The current model for medical school makes the mistaken assumption that health care spending is not badly broken. Medical school is very expensive, yet many physicians do not earn enough to pay off their medical school loans. These days, many doctors find themselves working in a broken system with huge financial burdens from medical school. So, neither medical school or law school offers a "guaranteed fast track". Yet, your options after each are still quite good. No matter what field you pursue there are pitfalls. That's life.

atatu
11-04-2011, 02:54 PM
Hey, cross-examination is amazingly difficult. You cannot believe how hard it is until you try it. You have a million ideas flying around in your head, and you have to get a hostile person to say what you want?

Then add in how overworked defense and prosecuting attorneys are and you have a recipe for some seriously bad witness handling.

OMTput, I had to do essay answers like everyone else on the bar. During breaks, the Most Annoying People In The World would discuss what they had just written in their essays. This would cause me to realize I had missed this or that issue and to then fret about it for the next six months until the results came out.

It has been 25 years since I wrote them, but to this day I can remember one thing I missed on the criminal law essay: Larceny by trick. :shudder:

Yes, cross examination is difficult, but direct should not be, if the prosecutors this guy was testifying for were asking the wrong questions, then they did not prepare adequately. Ok, here's a question for all the lawyers on TT - can you explain the rule against perpetuities in a way that makes sense ? Free overgrip to the winner...

Fifth Set
11-04-2011, 03:52 PM
Overall, we need more students to pursue careers in engineering and science, but we'll see how trends go. Overall, there is a shortage of family practitioners/internal medicine physicians in rural areas, but a large percentage of medical students still pursue higher paying specialties in urban areas.

You are right on the surface, but what we need most as a nation to create wealth, jobs and opportunity is successful entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, government regulation, our litigation-obsessed culture and the difficulty of getting "formal education" in, basically, risk taking, make this a big challenge.

What's more, some believe that education is itself an obstacle. The theory is that student loan debt is forcing people into conservative career choices. I don't fully buy this argument, but it's worth understanding, particularly given all of the talk of student loan debt in this very thread. I don't think Peter Thiel and his fellowship will be the last we hear about this...

http://chronicle.com/article/Thiel-Fellowship-Pays-24/127622/

Agent Orynge
11-04-2011, 04:02 PM
You are right on the surface, but what we need most as a nation to create wealth, jobs and opportunity is successful entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, government regulation, our litigation-obsessed culture and the difficulty of getting "formal education" in, basically, risk taking, make this a big challenge.

What's more, some believe that education is itself an obstacle. The theory is that student loan debt is forcing people into conservative career choices. I don't fully buy this argument, but it's worth understanding, particularly given all of the talk of student loan debt in this very thread. I don't think Peter Thiel and his fellowship will be the last we hear about this...

http://chronicle.com/article/Thiel-Fellowship-Pays-24/127622/

Did you mean lack of government regulation?

adamX012
11-04-2011, 08:26 PM
OMG.. the debate is still ongoing!

Please continue...

sureshs
11-05-2011, 06:58 AM
The supply and demand for lawyers isn't going to change drastically anytime soon. Overall, we need more students to pursue careers in engineering and science, but we'll see how trends go. Overall, there is a shortage of family practitioners/internal medicine physicians in rural areas, but a large percentage of medical students still pursue higher paying specialties in urban areas. Years ago, a law degree would guarantee you a high salary and a safe career. Yet, that's no longer the case.

The current model for medical school makes the mistaken assumption that health care spending is not badly broken. Medical school is very expensive, yet many physicians do not earn enough to pay off their medical school loans. These days, many doctors find themselves working in a broken system with huge financial burdens from medical school. So, neither medical school or law school offers a "guaranteed fast track". Yet, your options after each are still quite good. No matter what field you pursue there are pitfalls. That's life.

Medicine and law should be outsourced

Fifth Set
11-05-2011, 07:35 AM
Did you mean lack of government regulation?

A lack of government regulation is hindering entrepreneurs from starting and building new companies? :confused:

I look forward to how you make this argument.

Agent Orynge
11-05-2011, 12:01 PM
Monopolies? Trust busting? We used to think that big business was inherently unfair to the little guys, but our interest in combating them seems to have waned since the end of the second world war. Some time later, a strange fellow by the name of Reagan managed to convince the public that it was in our best interest to protect big business instead, and it's been something of an uphill battle ever since. So yes, I would say that what little regulation does exist only serves to keep the money in the pockets of the powers that be. Everything else is being systematically erased by people who would have us believe that big government is evil.

chrischris
11-05-2011, 03:04 PM
I wonder if anyone has a good understanding of the so called Santa Clara case:
http://www.answers.com/topic/santa-clara-county-v-southern-pacific-railroad

If so , can you explain the real significance of it? Thanks.

Fifth Set
11-05-2011, 08:19 PM
Are you two the same person?!

Not only are the monopolies of yesteryear ancient history, enforcement of HSR is pretty strict these days. Any respectable M&A transaction will get a federal review.

What's more, the only folks still grinding the Santa Clara ax are hardcore anti-business types. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html

Business isn't perfect. But, it provides goods. Services. Jobs. Sales and income tax revenues to governments.

Even beloved Apple is a corporation. It enters into contracts, tries to minimize its taxes and seeks to enforce its rights, including, horror of horrors, developing real estate! Sorry to disappoint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M

Agent Orynge
11-05-2011, 09:11 PM
My point about monopolies was to offer some historical perspective on the nature of big business, and how our government presently chooses to regulate (or not regulate) said business. I understand your previous point about certain regulations being prohibitive for entrepreneurial opportunities, but don't you suppose that the impact of chains like Walmart on mom-and-pop stores is a bigger issue?

adamX012
11-05-2011, 09:38 PM
Medicine and law should be outsourced

That's very true; I pick up another profession instead.....

Fifth Set
11-05-2011, 10:00 PM
My point about monopolies was to offer some historical perspective on the nature of big business, and how our government presently chooses to regulate (or not regulate) said business. I understand your previous point about certain regulations being prohibitive for entrepreneurial opportunities, but don't you suppose that the impact of chains like Walmart on mom-and-pop stores is a bigger issue?

What does this have to do with government regulation? Do you want the feds to come in and break up Walmart? Anyway, Walmart is a mess, but its popularity is entirely "democratic." Everyone wants cheap junk. The now defunct mom and pops selling expensive junk created no more jobs and even then existed mainly due to inefficiency in delivery.

If you're that desperate to find government regulation that helps or creates new business, think of environmental regulation. With rules limiting incandescent bulbs and providing tax breaks for solar, for example, businesses have sprung up around renewable energy and conservation. Examples in this area include Solar City, Tesla Motors and Resource Solutions Group (http://rsgrp.com/).

It's still a rarity though, and those businesses still must deal with other government restrictions on their ability to be successful, from archaic labor laws to Sarbanes Oxley.

SoBad
11-05-2011, 10:22 PM
Medicine and law should be outsourced

The court rooms in Manhattan take up a lot of valuable space in Chinatown unnecessarily. There is plenty of prime office space available in Guangdong to process the American justice system in an efficient manner. Outsourcing the American justice system would be a cost-efficient solution, provided that appropriate video-conferencing applications are in place to connect the American litigants with the judges in China who have been appropriately trained to process American legal issues and the death penalty. Outsourcing of the justice system would enable the expansion and rejuvenation of the very neighbourhoods and communities that residents and visitors alike depend upon for the enjoyment of the very dishes originating from what would soon become the new beacon of freedom for the citizens entitled to their day in court.

Fifth Set
11-05-2011, 10:34 PM
...judges in China who have been appropriately trained to process American legal issues...

LOL!

BTW, it's not that hard to teach someone the American system of commercial litigation. There are only two basic principles.

1. It's always somebody else's fault.
2. The somebody else with the highest insurance limits is the most at fault.

Agent Orynge
11-05-2011, 10:35 PM
What does this have to do with government regulation? Do you want the feds to come in and break up Walmart? Anyway, Walmart is a mess, but its popularity is entirely "democratic." Everyone wants cheap junk. The now defunct mom and pops selling expensive junk created no more jobs and even then existed mainly due to inefficiency in delivery.

If you're that desperate to find government regulation that helps or creates new business, think of environmental regulation. With rules limiting incandescent bulbs and providing tax breaks for solar, for example, businesses have sprung up around renewable energy and conservation. Examples in this area include Solar City, Tesla Motors and Resource Solutions Group (http://rsgrp.com/).

It's still a rarity though, and those businesses still must deal with other government restrictions on their ability to be successful, from archaic labor laws to Sarbanes Oxley.

I want the Feds to guarantee fairness, on both local and international levels. That requires regulation.

I would say that Walmart's popularity is more capitalist than democratic, and people are starting to see what a sham true capitalism is. If you can't see how more regulation would tie in here, then I don't know how else to explain it to you.

sureshs
11-06-2011, 03:40 AM
The court rooms in Manhattan take up a lot of valuable space in Chinatown unnecessarily. There is plenty of prime office space available in Guangdong to process the American justice system in an efficient manner. Outsourcing the American justice system would be a cost-efficient solution, provided that appropriate video-conferencing applications are in place to connect the American litigants with the judges in China who have been appropriately trained to process American legal issues and the death penalty. Outsourcing of the justice system would enable the expansion and rejuvenation of the very neighbourhoods and communities that residents and visitors alike depend upon for the enjoyment of the very dishes originating from what would soon become the new beacon of freedom for the citizens entitled to their day in court.

I was referring to outsourcing all the research and preparation work. Judges and lawyers who need to be in the courtroom would be here, but the legal assistants who search the databases and prepare the detailed paperwork can be outsourced. It is no different from tax preparation. Every year, the number of tax returns prepared overseas increases. It is easy for an accountant anywhere in the world to learn a new tax code. They fill up all the forms and send them in. The idea is to make sure that no one ever charges 400 bucks an hour for legal service. The only way to break the monopoly is to introduce competition.

Already, X rays and MRIs are sent abroad for scanning and preliminary examination. Eventually, people should have the freedom of getting medical advice from anyone they want. They can get it from a board-certified doctor in the US if they want, or from anyone else. Get the tests and physical exam by a nurse done locally, and send the results to whoever you want.

Already, generic prescription drugs are manufactured abroad, which has resulted in senior citizens getting affordable rates from Walmart and other pharmacies. That is why drug companies fight the generic conversion process once the patent ends. If life-saving drugs can be made where it is cheaper, I see no reason why doctors in any part of the world cannot be used. Don't use them if you don't trust them. Every day, thousands of older US citizens on limited income board buses for Mexico, where doctors treat them. I play tennis with a guy who does that periodically. He says the cost difference is so absurd that it is a no-brainer. It is a myth that US doctors are better or deserve to be paid more. They do little more than regurgitate standard material most of the time, coating it with some useless references to "research." No need to pay more for that (if you don't want to). The best ones are the best in the world, but that doesn't apply to the others.

Medical tourism is just in its infancy. It should become standard procedure.

Agent Orynge
11-06-2011, 04:07 PM
The court rooms in Manhattan take up a lot of valuable space in Chinatown unnecessarily. There is plenty of prime office space available in Guangdong to process the American justice system in an efficient manner. Outsourcing the American justice system would be a cost-efficient solution, provided that appropriate video-conferencing applications are in place to connect the American litigants with the judges in China who have been appropriately trained to process American legal issues and the death penalty. Outsourcing of the justice system would enable the expansion and rejuvenation of the very neighbourhoods and communities that residents and visitors alike depend upon for the enjoyment of the very dishes originating from what would soon become the new beacon of freedom for the citizens entitled to their day in court.

Jebus, that is quite the run-on sentence.

Fifth Set
11-06-2011, 05:15 PM
...people are starting to see what a sham true capitalism is...

Don't confuse the Occupy Wall Street clowns for "people."

Agent Orynge
11-06-2011, 05:26 PM
Don't confuse the Occupy Wall Street clowns for "people."

You don't have to be part of that crowd to realize that capitalism doesn't benefit everybody. Do you want to have a conversation, or are you content to take potshots at third parties?

Fifth Set
11-06-2011, 05:44 PM
You don't have to be part of that crowd to realize that capitalism doesn't benefit everybody. Do you want to have a conversation, or are you content to take potshots at third parties?

Oh, that was an invitation to a conversation? Your debating style is to make an absurd, tangential statement (e.g., a lack of regulation inhibits new business; capitalism is a sham) followed by backtracking and qualification. Hardly conversational.

Make a coherent point and follow it up with substantive examples or data. Then we will be having a conversation.

woodrow1029
11-06-2011, 05:53 PM
10char.......

woodrow1029
11-06-2011, 05:54 PM
Don't do it!!!

But if you insist, an engineering degree or some hard science degree is the best way to get in to law school. Easy to get a attorney job if you have one of those.

From what I hear, that's great advice if you want to be a patent attorney. I'm sure it helps for other types of attorneys too.

Agent Orynge
11-06-2011, 06:09 PM
Oh, that was an invitation to a conversation? Your debating style is to make an absurd, tangential statement (e.g., a lack of regulation inhibits new business; capitalism is a sham) followed by backtracking and qualification. Hardly conversational.

Make a coherent point and follow it up with substantive examples or data. Then we will be having a conversation.

Backtracking seems to be a necessity, since you're having such a hard time grasping some simple concepts (which are neither tangential not absurd) the first time around. I thought we were having a conversation, but since you have your heart set on being condescending instead, I don't think I'll bother talking to you anymore. Have fun waxing intellectual with your garbage collector brethren.

mhj202
11-06-2011, 06:56 PM
Fun fact: When I lived in California, I decided to make some extra money while on maternity leave by becoming an essay grader for the California Bar Exam. (At that time, the exam was three days, two of which were devoted to essays). I applied and was accepted. I never graded an actual bar exam because we moved away, so all I know about is the training.

The way it worked was that you attended some sessions in which they explained how they wanted things done and what the "right" answers were. Then they gave you actual exam answers from prior exams and you were supposed to score them. Your scores needed to be close to the actual score the essay received.

I was shocked at some of the answers candidates for admission to the bar wrote.

There were essays in which it was clear the person couldn't put two sentences together.

A lot of people simply went through a mental checklist of every legal issue they could think of, regardless of whether it was related to the question. They had memorized the cheat sheet, by golly, and they were going to use it. This was not a good strategy to rack up points.

The people I remember most vividly were the people who ended their unfortunate essay with, "PLEASE DON'T FAIL ME! I'LL LOSE MY JOB!! I HAVE TWO KIDS TO SUPPORT!!" There were more of these than I would have imagined.

So, OP. When you get through the LSAT and law school and are seated for the exam, don't spend your time writing a plea. It won't help.

Cindy -- who never saw a quality essay that ended with a plea for mercy

One important point that should not be overlooked is that the bar exam (for whatever jurisdiction/state, be it CA or otherwise) has absolutely nothing to do with testing an applicant's ability to practice law or the applicant's understanding of any useful substantive legal concepts that will help him/her in the future practice of law.

It is simply a rite of passage- essentially a hazing ritual that continues because those that have gone through it and passed figure that the folks that follow after them should feel the pain as well.

Also, it is a pass/fail exam that does not place any additional value on writing ability or deep understanding of the legal concepts-- therefore, bar exam takers are trained (in a 2 month cram course called Bar Bri) to essentially give very superficial answers and basically go "through a mental checklist of every legal issue they could think of, regardless of whether it was related to the question".

mhj202
11-06-2011, 07:09 PM
Good grades and high LSAT score, that is really all you need for admission.

At least it was back in my day, says this NYU Law alum

+1.

For US law schools, it's still all you need: (1) good grades, and (2) high LSAT scores.

At least it was back in my day (15+ years ago), my wife's day (10+ years ago), my brother's day (7 years ago) and my younger sister's day (2 years ago)-- confirms this NYU Law alum.

That having been said, I have no idea why anyone would want to go to law school. Actually, I should clarify that: law school is fine; I can't understand why anyone would want to be a lawyer.

adamX012
11-06-2011, 08:19 PM
I don't why this thread is so entertaining... I couldn't believe I checked this message board while I was at dinner at a korean restaurant.

All I can say is please continued...

Cindysphinx
11-07-2011, 04:44 AM
One important point that should not be overlooked is that the bar exam (for whatever jurisdiction/state, be it CA or otherwise) has absolutely nothing to do with testing an applicant's ability to practice law or the applicant's understanding of any useful substantive legal concepts that will help him/her in the future practice of law.

It is simply a rite of passage- essentially a hazing ritual that continues because those that have gone through it and passed figure that the folks that follow after them should feel the pain as well.

Also, it is a pass/fail exam that does not place any additional value on writing ability or deep understanding of the legal concepts-- therefore, bar exam takers are trained (in a 2 month cram course called Bar Bri) to essentially give very superficial answers and basically go "through a mental checklist of every legal issue they could think of, regardless of whether it was related to the question".

I'm not sure that I agree.

They have to do *something* to make sure the wholly unqualified don't gain a license to practice law. I suppose a three-day test lasting six hours each day is a reasonable way to start. Why shouldn't a person who hopes to practice law expect to do so without demonstrating an understanding of it?

As for whether the bar exam places value on writing and deep understanding of legal concepts . . . I think it does. As well as any standardized test can be expected to, anyway. You certainly don't want an exam that is so esoteric that the grading of it becomes too arbitrary or subjective.

As for the mental checklist one receives through a prep course . . . Yeah, sure. Go ahead and write your answers in this fashion. Many people do. Which could be why the Cal bar had a pass rate (that's pass rate, not fail rate) of about 45% the year I took it.

mhj202
11-07-2011, 05:07 AM
I'm not sure that I agree.

They have to do *something* to make sure the wholly unqualified don't gain a license to practice law. I suppose a three-day test lasting six hours each day is a reasonable way to start. Why shouldn't a person who hopes to practice law expect to do so without demonstrating an understanding of it?

As for whether the bar exam places value on writing and deep understanding of legal concepts . . . I think it does. As well as any standardized test can be expected to, anyway. You certainly don't want an exam that is so esoteric that the grading of it becomes too arbitrary or subjective.

As for the mental checklist one receives through a prep course . . . Yeah, sure. Go ahead and write your answers in this fashion. Many people do. Which could be why the Cal bar had a pass rate (that's pass rate, not fail rate) of about 45% the year I took it.

As someone who has taken and passed bar exams in multiple states, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you truly believe that the bar exam tests writing ability and deep understanding of legal concepts then I think you're literally the first attorney that I've ever heard who has that view, but to each his/her own. I agree however that it does in fact serve as a "filter" in that it does sort out those who are passably literate from those that are not.

As for the bar passage rate in CA, I believe that is reflective of the large of number of test-takers in CA from unaccredited and non-ABA recognized law schools more than the difficulty of the exam itself. The overall passage rate is CA is not much higher now (if at all) than when you took the exam but if you look at the passage rate based on quality of law school, it is obvious that there are a significant number of folks coming out of poor quality law schools that shouldn't have been admitted to law school in the first place and that these poor law schools do these law students no favors in taking their money and wasting three years of their lives.

WhiteStripes
11-08-2011, 08:51 AM
I will say the CA bar does emphasize writing ability more on its bar exam than other states because of the "performance" section of the exam. It's actually the most "lawyer-ly" test of any the bar exams I've taken.

That said, I do agree that in general that any emphasis on writing on bar exams, including the CA bar, is fairly superficial and confined largely to issue spotting. The exams are certainly not indicative of whether someone will be a good lawyer, although they do generally weed out those who have no business being an attorney... unless you're in one of those states with a 99% bar pass rate.

Hell, I'm frankly not even sure how important law school is in molding a person into a good attorney, and I personally found law school to be an absolute joke. I stopped going to classes my last two years of law school after securing the biglaw summer associate gig I wanted (which, back in the day, basically equates to a full time offer of employment assuming you don't majorly screw up during the summer), and my grades actually went up despite only showing up to classes about twice a semester. I honestly don't remember anything that I "learned" in law school having that much impact on my day to day practice. I just basically figured out how to play the law school exam game.

Cindysphinx
11-08-2011, 09:09 AM
Regarding the bar exam, remember that it is a one-size-fits-all test. This is different from board certification for doctors, in which one gets certified in a specialty.

My take on the bar exam is that it asks the student to know, well, pretty much everything. I had to learn some estate law, for example, even though I will never practice in that area.

I didn't find law school to be a joke. I disliked it quite a lot, though. You read cases in a book, and then you read cases in the next book. And then you took an essay test in which you tried to apply what you had read to some situation someone had cooked up. Yawn.

I liked practice. Doing research or reviewing documents is like trying to solve a crime. I'm looking for the evidence with which to hang the other guy. What fun! Very different from law school.

SlapShot
11-08-2011, 09:20 AM
I wonder if anyone has a good understanding of the so called Santa Clara case:
http://www.answers.com/topic/santa-clara-county-v-southern-pacific-railroad

If so , can you explain the real significance of it? Thanks.

Well, the basic premise of the Santa Clara case (and more specifically, the clerical "error" in the Santa Clara case) gave rise to the premise that corporations are "people", and as such, have the same rights as people. The issue with that is that corporations do not have the same limits that people do - they do not have a definite lifespan, and you cannot put a corporation in prison as you can with people. As such, the penalties for breaking the law are substantially less with a corporation than they are for a single person.

Prior to Santa Clara, corporations did not have the same rights as people, and that placed a much stricter set of standards on the corporations. This has a ripple effect into many areas of business and politics, not the least of which is the corporate argument that they have first amendment rights, and can contribute to political campaigns. It's really an interesting case once you get past the seemingly inane "should fences be taxed" issue of the case, and move into the deeper reprecussions.

sureshs
11-08-2011, 09:39 AM
Corporations as people is basically an idea kept alive by the right-wing (who actually keep on getting screwed by corporations but love the feeling).

SoBad
11-10-2011, 07:47 PM
I was referring to outsourcing all the research and preparation work. Judges and lawyers who need to be in the courtroom would be here, but the legal assistants who search the databases and prepare the detailed paperwork can be outsourced. It is no different from tax preparation. Every year, the number of tax returns prepared overseas increases. It is easy for an accountant anywhere in the world to learn a new tax code. They fill up all the forms and send them in. The idea is to make sure that no one ever charges 400 bucks an hour for legal service. The only way to break the monopoly is to introduce competition.

Already, X rays and MRIs are sent abroad for scanning and preliminary examination. Eventually, people should have the freedom of getting medical advice from anyone they want. They can get it from a board-certified doctor in the US if they want, or from anyone else. Get the tests and physical exam by a nurse done locally, and send the results to whoever you want.

Already, generic prescription drugs are manufactured abroad, which has resulted in senior citizens getting affordable rates from Walmart and other pharmacies. That is why drug companies fight the generic conversion process once the patent ends. If life-saving drugs can be made where it is cheaper, I see no reason why doctors in any part of the world cannot be used. Don't use them if you don't trust them. Every day, thousands of older US citizens on limited income board buses for Mexico, where doctors treat them. I play tennis with a guy who does that periodically. He says the cost difference is so absurd that it is a no-brainer. It is a myth that US doctors are better or deserve to be paid more. They do little more than regurgitate standard material most of the time, coating it with some useless references to "research." No need to pay more for that (if you don't want to). The best ones are the best in the world, but that doesn't apply to the others.

Medical tourism is just in its infancy. It should become standard procedure.

I doubt that medical tourism will become “standard” for U.S. residents, but perhaps it has a better shot than legal tourism. Good lawyers will continue to get paid well over 400/hr as long as they have clients willing to pay their fees and regardless of where the administrative “research work” is done.

There is no doubt that “limited income older” Southern California residents can benefit from bussing to Tijuana for medical treatment or drugs, as can glamorous New York people from flying to Thailand for a major surgery. However, there are no practical implications for a guy in Iowa who needs a dental filling – he is not traveling to China for the filling (or legal advice, for that matter).

SoBad
11-10-2011, 08:03 PM
The court rooms in Manhattan take up a lot of valuable space in Chinatown unnecessarily. There is plenty of prime office space available in Guangdong to process the American justice system in an efficient manner. Outsourcing the American justice system would be a cost-efficient solution, provided that appropriate video-conferencing applications are in place to connect the American litigants with the judges in China who have been appropriately trained to process American legal issues and the death penalty. Outsourcing of the justice system would enable the expansion and rejuvenation of the very neighbourhoods and communities that residents and visitors alike depend upon for the enjoyment of the very dishes originating from what would soon become the new beacon of freedom for the citizens entitled to their day in court.

Jebus, that is quite the run-on sentence.

Thanks for your comment – this is good multiple-choice practice for the OP. All of the following, if true, would undermine SoBad’s statement, except:

A) the residents and visitors of NYC depend on Queens rather than Manhattan for quality Chinese cuisine;

B) even if provided with proper training, the judges in China would not be able to interpret the death penalty statutes without bias;

C) there is no prime office space available in Guangdong;

D) there are no courtrooms in the vicinity of Chinatown in Manhattan;

E) an individual posted a comment on a tennis forum challenging the grammar of the concluding sentence of the statement.

:lol:

Agent Orynge
11-10-2011, 10:37 PM
Thanks for your comment – this is good multiple-choice practice for the OP. All of the following, if true, would undermine SoBad’s statement, except:

A) the residents and visitors of NYC depend on Queens rather than Manhattan for quality Chinese cuisine;

B) even if provided with proper training, the judges in China would not be able to interpret the death penalty statutes without bias;

C) there is no prime office space available in Guangdong;

D) there are no courtrooms in the vicinity of Chinatown in Manhattan;

E) an individual posted a comment on a tennis forum challenging the grammar of the concluding sentence of the statement.

:lol:

It's less a matter of grammar correction, and more a matter of communication skills. If you have a point to make, it would behoove you to put it in a format that people won't dismiss out of hand because it's unreadable.

Anyways, QQ moar.

goober
11-11-2011, 05:54 AM
Regarding the bar exam, remember that it is a one-size-fits-all test. This is different from board certification for doctors, in which one gets certified in a specialty.

.

Actually board certification in medicine is not really equivalent to passing a bar exam in law. Physicians do have to take a "one size fits all" test to get a license to practice. There are actually 3 seperate exams you have to pass (year 2, year 4 and after intern year) before you can get licensed. Board certification is something completely seperate and not required for practice although in reality most people get it.

Fifth Set
11-11-2011, 10:35 AM
Corporations as people is basically an idea kept alive by the right-wing (who actually keep on getting screwed by corporations but love the feeling).

LOL, if you see anyone who is more grounded in reality than Al Gore as "right wing," then this comment makes sense!

Agent Orynge
11-11-2011, 01:00 PM
So much hostility. How has the world wronged you?

SlapShot
11-11-2011, 01:01 PM
LOL, if you see anyone who is more grounded in reality than Al Gore as "right wing," then this comment makes sense!

Ah yes, always love the personal attack as a response....seems to be the MO of a certain quoted poster.....

Fifth Set
11-11-2011, 01:22 PM
So much hostility. How has the world wronged you?

:confused: Hasn't wronged me one bit - I have a great life. Nor am I hostile. Sorry you're misinterpreting.

I am most definitely amused by politicized ax grinding, hypocrisy, bad advice and bizarre tangents, all of which we have seen in droves in this thread. And I'm not bashful about calling those things out when I see them.

If instead you just want to talk about the weather or your favorite shoe brand, no problem, boss. It's raining here and I like Prince shoes. Is that better for you?

adamX012
11-11-2011, 01:46 PM
LOL.. so many funny posts...

Love it.....

Agent Orynge
11-11-2011, 02:21 PM
Right, because bashing the OWS folks wasn't tangential or hostile. That's not the least bit hypocritical.

Troll harder, please.

El Diablo
11-12-2011, 09:57 AM
Outsourcing the judicial system? Hmmm. Might require repeal of the sixth ammendment.