Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - loki13

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 30

I took the CalBar in Ontario as well. When I learned I was taking it there, I was pretty pissed (as in, wtf, Ontario?) but I completely second your comments.

I also stayed on-site. Which is something I have recommended to every person taking the Bar, in every state. Always, always, always get a hotel room. The price you pay (IMO) is completely made up for in peace of mind.

That said, I disagree with one thing you wrote about LA. No one lives in Long Beach. ;)

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Greetings,
« on: Today at 09:48:20 AM »

Not sure if you're serious. If you are, here's the thing. What you posted, unfrotunately, doesn't really matter absent your LSAT score. Try a few practice tests and score them to at least get an idea of what you might do (a range). Let me explain-

Yes, uGPA (undergraduate GPA) is important. But in this era of grade inflation, a 3.75 at an (unidentified) Texas school in an (unidentified) major, by itself, isn't all that when it comes to admission to Harvard Law. The *median* uGPA for an offer from Harvard is a 3.88. And that includes applicants that go to the few schools that do not have grade inflation or are in "hard" subject (some type of STEM). Put another way, you are below the median for offers from Harvard. Until you know your LSAT score, you have no idea if you're even competitive. If you're scoring in the 150s - 160s, you're just not. Period.

Next point- everything else you write is mainly worthless. This isn't undergrad. No one cares if you're active in student organizations. No ones cares if you went on and received a Masters (with a small exception that I will write about later). Almost every school has a matrix that consists of the LSAT + uGPA (weighted), and that's pretty much it. Almost all decisions are based on that. Yes, you can knock yourself out by writing the lyrics to "I want Money" over and over again as your personal statement. You can gain some advantage at some schools by being an URM (under-represented minority). If you're a borderline case, your application materials might push you one way or the other, since they do have to make more individualized calls. But, really, it's all LSAT + uGPA.

Next, there can be some issues with "splitters" (usually, lower than expected uGPA + high LSAT). That's not an issue for you. Then there's the issue of taking time off. This is something I almost always highly recommend! It's good for people to get some life experience. But getting a Masters is not going to help you get into a Law School. Now, if you *know* you're going to get into Harvard, and you know you're going to do the academic track (clerkship, law professor, for example), and this won't cause a debt issue, then by all means, why not? This would help you. But that's pretty specialized, and, again, don't do it because you think it will help you get into law school.

Finally, you mention costs. You might want to look up the costs of local Texas law school. Yes, the state schools are cheaper than Harvard- but I think you'll be surprised how "uncheap" they are. And the private schools, absent a scholarship, well.... a little knowledge can be a wonderful thing.

TLDR- Take a practice LSAT. Learn more.

Here's the thing- LA is a completely, totally, bizarre city. I lived near the LACMA(technically, West Hollywood area). If you talk to most people in Los Angeles, they'll tell you that it is a car city, and they won't be wrong. But it is also one of the most amazingly walkable cities I have ever lived in.

Okay, let me explain. "LA" isn't so much a single city, but a bunch of sprawling, urban neighborhoods. With the (usually) wonderful weather, and the sidewalks that are everywhere, it can be a much more walkable city than many others (such as cites in the South, which are gawdawful hot and often don't have sidewalks in many areas, or the NE, which have that whole Winter thing). But very few people walk, because it's not in the zeitgeist. When I worked downtown, people would (seriously) drive if it was more than a five minute walk. It was crazy to me.

LA also has a great subway system. Unfortunately, it doesn't go very far. But I loved it.

Finally, when I was there, I often took advantage of the buses. You have to understand the differences (the express v. the locals) but they could take you everywhere. Clearly, they weren't as convenient as a car, but the system was amazing! And a TAP card (for public transit) was so cheap.

So... here's the thing. It really was a cultural thing there. Poor people took the public transit. My firm reimbursed the cost of parking / public transit. AFAIK, I was the *only* attorney to take the public trasit reimbursement. Repeat- the only one. I had a car, I just didn't feel like driving it unless I had a court date somewhere out of the city.

But to answer your question- LA's public transit was, IMO, pretty amazing. The only reason I had even considered it is because I had previously lived in NE cities and used public transit (subways). If you keep your smartphone and google maps with you, and/or the LA Transit website loaded (maybe they have an app now?) it can take you where you need to go. That said, if you are taking a bus, remember that they also go on the roads, just like cars. Occasionally they get delayed. Try and make sure to be near an express stop (those are the big red buses)- the locals can, sometimes, take forever. Get a TAP card first thing. The subway system there is pretty awesome as well, but very limited; it also shut down early, and very occasionally would shut down at weird hours or at weird stations to shoot a film (look closely at many films and you'll see that the subway station in question is, in fact, LA's subway).

Finally, while you didn't ask it- neighborhoods really matter in LA. It's not a homogenous city.... at all. I loved where I lived. I could walk one way and end up at the Chinese Theater and the Grove. I could walk the other way and end up in Little Ethiopia for a great meal.

Hope this helps.

(By the way, I'm not picking on Temple- I was using it as an example of *good* employment numbers. Bad numbers are at schools like Ave Maria, which place 30% of their grads in positions that require a JD. Something to think about. Good schools are in the 45% (Penn State) 60% (Temple), 66% (UF), 75% (UCLA) range. Great schools are in the 87% + range. Penn has a 90%+ rate.)


The reason I take issue with your goal-based analysis is that, unfortunately, the vast majority of incoming 0Ls don't have a clear idea of what it is they want to do. I often joke about the 0L that wants to be a "Constitutional Lawyer" or an "M&A Attorney." In addition, most have an extremely unrealistic picture of what attorney's earn (average salary not being the same as the median salary, for instance). Simply put, there are a few high salary jobs, a few mid salary jobs, and a larger number of "starter" jobs. And if you're not certain, your best option is a T14. In addition to the BigLaw jobs, many offer various types of loan forgiveness that you just can't get at other schools if you go into public service-y type jobs (they can afford to, since so many of their grads are making money).

The factor I think you are ignoring is that many schools outside of the T14 can't place their students into jobs. They just can't. I know the market has improved somewhat, but I have seen the decimation that occurred from 2008 onwards. People in my class couldn't get jobs- and this from a well-respected school. People in the next year's class, top students, struggling. So many unemployed and never getting jobs. Let's take an example- Temple. Good school. Ranked #52. In the last three years, they have never been able to graduate even 60% (from 52-59%, including school-funded jobs) into a position that requires a JD.

And that's the difference. I am *not* a T14 snob, as my experience shows that you don't need a T14 degree to succeed. But I'm also quite aware that the cost/benefit ratio is very different when you leave the T14. I could not, in good conscience, recommend that anyone pay full freight to go to a law school outside of the T14, unless it was a state school (lower tuition) or their parents were paying for it. It's just not worth it from a cost/benefit analysis.

I do agree with you that if someone is comparing a T14 school with a free ride (and no onerous conditions on the scholarship) at a T50 school, then perhaps, depending on circumstances, they might choose otherwise. But if a poster does not provide circumstances otherwise, I can't, in good conscience, tell them to pursue their dream at a lower ranked school.

I should add something- you don't seem very positive on the "where" you're going to move to part. LA is NOT Santa Monica is NOT Long Beach. And, um, you might have heard that LA occasionally has traffic issues.

RE: public transportation, LA has a great bus system, and a very limited subway. Once you understand the bus systems (differences between express and local, for instance) it is extremely easy to use and pretty reliable.

That said, LA is definitely a car city. I can't add anything about taxis, since I never took one when I lived there (it was recently, but pre-Uber).

Good luck. And don't stress too much. I took the LSAT in a place that was an hour and a half from where I was living, and it was no big deal.

The bar, on the other hand...

It may be a bit outdated, but check out this thread:

It appears that the consensus is Southwestern, although some like USC (but not during football season).

I didn't take the LSAT in LA, but I lived there for a while. Southwestern is near the Wilshire/Vermont subway (for mass transit). Not the most scenic area, but still.

"The confidence and decisiveness can also backfire if it is wrong, but having clerked etc I imagine you saw many lawyers that you could have done better than. "

Heh. Maybe that's the problem. I've gradually gained confidence from seeing so much terrible, terrible lawyering. So I know that at least I'm not as bad as what I'm usually litigating against.

On the other hand, part of being semi-smart is worrying that you're not right, because there's always more law, more issues, and more things to look at.


Well, I was a non-trad in law school (and the oldest person in my associate class). My concern was not just the business side of starting your own firm (which is considerable, and is fraught with not only the typical concerns of starting a going concern, but also perils that only exist for law firms, such as client accounts), but also the more mundane issue of experience.

Which is to say, even having clerked, worked before, worked as a RA in law school, summered for a BigLaw firm, *and* worked for a local firm while in law school, I was still woefully underprepared for actual practice. Law school lays down a great foundation, but I would have had no idea how to the following straight out of law school:
1) Prepare a will (really) that was anything beyond the most simple of wills.
2) Draft a contact that was solid.
3) Prepare a trust (actually, I still can't do that).
4) Litigate in state court.
5) Litigate in federal court. Well, now I'm an old hand at this one, but I know a lot of practicing attorneys that are still terrified to litigate in federal court.
...and so on. There are so many small intricacies that are either formal rules (does your state have a specialized system or requirements for certain types of suits that you waive if you don't comply?) or are norms (how do you really conduct discovery) that are learned through practice, and it can be very hard to pick those things up on your own.

I know that some people can start practices out of law school, but in the last two decades or so, it has been my experience that this avenue has become much harder. Thoughts?

"So, do rankings matter? Yes, especially at the top. But as others have stated, once you get into the great blurry mass of the other 190 or so schools that are not elite, you better prioritize cost and location over rankings."

I completely agree with this. At this point, I'm continuing the thread because it's better than Russian spam. :)

A few points I would like to emphasize- when I worked in BigLaw, I looked at my incoming class of associates. In all the offices, there were four (four!) associates from outside the T14. One from UCLA (in the LA office). One from George Washington. Two (including myself) from other top 50 schools.

There were 14 Harvard grads. That means that Harvard, alone, placed more than three times as many graduates into my BigLaw firm as associates as did every other school from 15 on.

Next, regarding the City Attorney position raised by CityLaw; I agree that know local government will fly you out to interview; on the other hand, your chances of getting hired increase exponentially if you are Harvard grad. One of my friends (Harvard Grad) couldn't hack BigLaw, and left after a year. She went on to work cases in the local city government. Her pedigree, as opposed to accomplishments to date, got her the job. That's neither right nor wrong, but rather a fact of life. Sure, once you have proven yourself in practice, your law school will fade away (except for the academic track if you want to be a professor). But that takes a while. A T14 degree will open a lot of doors.

I am not sure what to make of the transvestite/gay comment re: HYS, as it appears based on somewhat outdated stereotypes. Harvard, to use one example, is among the most progressive schools in the nation, with an active LGBT community (at least, it was according to the people I knew who were a part of it).

I do agree with the second career bit from Citylaw; if you're much past the age of 30, it will be much harder to get the type of job to help you pay down the debt that a T14 school will give you. That goes to the question of whether it's a sound investment, but I would also question why someone would want to attend law school at 44 unless they are already financially secure  and this is more of an intellectual exploration / desire to explore a second career that they can take or leave.

Finally, I would ask that Citylaw post some more thoughts about hanging out the shingle (becoming a sole practitioner). One of the ongoing issues in legal practice is how difficult it is for new attorneys to begin practice without experience, as law school is not a great way to gain experience... this has been an ongoing topic of conversation in my state bar. Simply put, absent a close network of people that you can rely on for advice, as well as community connections that you have prior to law school (clients!), and an entrepreneurial spirit, I would never recommend hanging out your shingle to begin with, but instead working, for at least a year or two, with a small practice or as a prosecutor/PD (litigation experience). Had I hung out my shingle to start with, I know I would have been committing malpractice. But, again, I am risk adverse, and I know that various state bars are trying to help with this problem.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 30