Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - HerculePoirot

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14
1
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 07, 2016, 04:44:56 PM »
I don't think he ever said he knew what he was talking about he is just saying random stuff on the internet that doesn't make a lot of sense and probably laughing at how much discussion is being generated talking about it. Donald Trump like really.

Prestige is important.  It attracts reliable clientele.  Nobody wants crummy clients.

2
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 07, 2016, 04:42:46 PM »
Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up.

If you graduate from a T14 with good grades (or a T5 with almost any grades), then yes, of course you will have a much better shot at high paying biglaw jobs as opposed to the average graduate of Unknown State U. This is stating the obvious.

Loki's quote above, however, is something that most 0Ls are clueless about. The wealthiest attorneys I've met are guys who learned a particular field of law very well, like consumer class action suits, and struck out on their own. They make the kind of money that would make a biglaw partner tear up. I know a very unassuming divorce lawyer with a small, low key office and a stellar reputation. That guy is a multimillionaire.

The point is that you are unlikely to get wealthy (I mean truly wealthy, not just well off) working for someone else. In law, business, whatever, people can get a good salary working for someone else. They usually don't get rich until they find a way to work for themselves.

Does that mean that you can't get rich as a biglaw partner? Of course not! But, as Loki pointed out, it is unlikely that a newly hired associate will stick around long enough to make partner.

You can purchase a lot more with a six figure salary.

3
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 07, 2016, 12:39:36 PM »
No, but you can afford a sports car on a Biglaw salary.

Where do I even start. As someone who has actual experience with the matters being discussed, perhaps I can shed a little light onto this conversation.

Biglaw can come in many shapes and sizes ... well, shapes at least. Cravath and Quinn are not the same as, say, Jackson Lewis. Some BigLaw outfits are regional, some national, some international. Some are general practice, some are a little more specialized. It is a generic term used to roughly state that the place has a lot of attorneys, and pays well, and usually (but not always) is operating out of one or more of the larger legal markets.

Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most prestigious BigLaw firms hire from the best schools. To get into the best schools, you need a high LSAT. In addition, some hires are made from the very top of other schools (those are usually the 10% plus law review to apply positions). As the LSAT is a decent predictor of law school success, there will be some correlation between doing well on the LSAT and getting a BigLaw job. But it's not close to a prerequisite, just as it's not a prerequisite to go to Harvard to work at Quinn (but it sure does help!).

Now, let's move to the sports car. Many boutique (that's law-speak for really, really small) law firms and mid-size firms will pay you more than enough to get that sports car. If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up. But the dirty secret of BigLaw is that almost none of those attorneys become partners within their own firm. You do the dirty work for a few years, pay off some bills, and then (hopefully) lateral to something more fulfilling. Many of those firms just poach attorneys that have built up their own book of business, or have gained other experience (say, as an AUSA) to become partners. No

Long story short- it's very hard to take your comment credibly.

Yeah, maybe I'm half wrong.  I still think your best shot at getting into Biglaw is scoring a 165 and going to a top twenty school.

4
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 07, 2016, 08:44:50 AM »
I think OP is just being entertaining and I like it. Sure why not say 165 is necessary to succeed that is a good score.

I would also say you need to be at least 6'10 to make the NBA. There are countless examples of people under 6'10 that are in the NBA, but being 6'10 wouldn't hurt.

So yea if you are trying to attend law school I hope to get a 1650 or higher on the LSAT shoot for doing that why not, but even if you don't you can still succeed as an attorney.
Biglaw is where it's at.  I think you need a 165.  164 is a stretch.  Maybe there's exceptions.  This is just my point of view.  :)
you...........think biglaw even asks in any way or fashion what your lsat score was???
and I can't stand people anyone who try to go "just my opinion" after random words with no reason come out. Did you EVER APPLY to "biglaw" or small law, or ANY law????

Apples come from potato plants...........just my opinion.

No, but you can afford a sports car on a Biglaw salary.

5
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 07, 2016, 08:43:51 AM »
If you want to avoid people who say "just my opinion" an internet board that lets anyone offer their opinion about anything might not be an ideal place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8 a little humor.

I get what your saying, but just kind of funny to think about.


The OP is just offering an opinion and I am sure there is a firm out there that asks what your LSAT score was and plenty that don't.

If you want a sports car, go Biglaw. 

6
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 07, 2016, 08:23:20 AM »
If you want to avoid people who say "just my opinion" an internet board that lets anyone offer their opinion about anything might not be an ideal place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8 a little humor.

I get what your saying, but just kind of funny to think about.


The OP is just offering an opinion and I am sure there is a firm out there that asks what your LSAT score was and plenty that don't.
I am pretty sure OP has a variety of (possibly not fully diagnosed) mental disabilities

I am 99.9% healthy. 8)

7
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 06, 2016, 06:17:15 PM »
I think OP is just being entertaining and I like it. Sure why not say 165 is necessary to succeed that is a good score.

I would also say you need to be at least 6'10 to make the NBA. There are countless examples of people under 6'10 that are in the NBA, but being 6'10 wouldn't hurt.

So yea if you are trying to attend law school I hope to get a 1650 or higher on the LSAT shoot for doing that why not, but even if you don't you can still succeed as an attorney.
Biglaw is where it's at.  I think you need a 165.  164 is a stretch.  Maybe there's exceptions.  This is just my point of view.  :)


8
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 06, 2016, 06:38:19 AM »
Well interesting thread that goes directly against the OP's statement.

OP scored a 166 and did not make it as a lawyer.

I scored under a 165 and am licensed in two jurisdictions and have won many trials and make a living as a lawyer as do most attorneys that did not finish in the top 10% of LSAT takers.

The LSAT is the first baby-step in the process and once your in a law school it does not matter. As OP has proven a variety of factors arise during law school and no matter what your score you might quit to become a musician, or any other situation could arise.

In short, plenty of people become practicing attorneys without scoring a 165 or higher.  There are also many people that score above a 165 and don't make it.

Certainly having a 4.0 and 180 LSAT is ideal, but it is not a guarantee of success.

I concede that I could be wrong, as your example suggests.
"could be" isn't a concession................ but if you are posting here again there must be a reason. Are you just bored (that's fine) or seriously thinking about trying another shot at it.

-I still don't get why you didn't sit the finals if you didn't plan to re-enroll though. What type of "music" career are you doing that required you to drop out at the drop of a hat.

I still believe that 165 is important. 

9
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 05, 2016, 03:58:27 PM »
Well interesting thread that goes directly against the OP's statement.

OP scored a 166 and did not make it as a lawyer.

I scored under a 165 and am licensed in two jurisdictions and have won many trials and make a living as a lawyer as do most attorneys that did not finish in the top 10% of LSAT takers.

The LSAT is the first baby-step in the process and once your in a law school it does not matter. As OP has proven a variety of factors arise during law school and no matter what your score you might quit to become a musician, or any other situation could arise.

In short, plenty of people become practicing attorneys without scoring a 165 or higher.  There are also many people that score above a 165 and don't make it.

Certainly having a 4.0 and 180 LSAT is ideal, but it is not a guarantee of success.

I concede that I could be wrong, as your example suggests. 

10
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 04, 2016, 03:13:11 PM »
So you DID NOT do it "to be a musician"
I heard about you, you were an urban legend for awhile-you are female aren't you?? (if so, I know people who know yoru real name, but don't worry I could out you publicly but feel free to PM me if you want)

Why didn't you go back? The school that you went to offers a 5 year plan on weekends/one night a week options.
Afterall, what difference does a W vs an F make it "better" if you never plan to go back??

"Fortuna Audaces Iuvat!!!!!!!!!!!"

No, I am not a female.  And who knows?  Maybe I will go back.
ok,then you aren't the person I was thinking of. That's ok.

How long have you been out? Why only a "maybe". I still don't grasp this.

Well, it's been nearly a decade.  I don't think I could get a 166 again.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14