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 - Citylaw

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 56
News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 26, 2015, 04:04:03 PM »
Made an analogy that didn't make a much sense and not surprisingly my bad analogy is confusing.

So my point if I you even really want to call it that is that people get really worked up about Politics for no reason. In my opinion anyone seriously running for office "I don't consider Trump" a serious candidate is capable of doing a fine job. Hilary Clinton is smart and politically savy, Jeb Bush is as well, Obama is as well, I could go on and on, but any serious candiate for office will do a fine job. Sure you might prefer one over the other, but despite what Fox News says about Democrats and MSNBC says about Republicans the world will likely be fine. I.E. had Romney been elected President (There would still be problems in the Middle East, Stocks would go down/up, on and on, you would pay income tax maybe a little less under Romney, but deal with a few more societal problems or pay a little more to have a few less societal problems.)  So essentially if anyone with the possible exception of Trump, wins the election I am sure we will all be able to rant on LSD and go about our lives. Therefore, I don't understand why anyone cares that much about politics.

The point about wrestling is that they are huge and strong and whoever the champion is right now can probalby bench 300lbs and the next one will be able to as well. Just as Obama is smart we all survived, George W. is smart and we all survived, Clinton was smart we all survived, Bush #1 is smart and we all survived, Reagan on and on. They all made both good and bad decisions, but at the end of the day whoever is the Politican will not impact our lives as much as people think.

See South Park Episode when Obama wins the Presidency and everyones problems are not fixed.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 26, 2015, 02:37:16 PM »
Any of them are competent enough to figure out the basics Hillary, Jeb, and then maybe 2024 we will have Chelseas Clinton and Jenna Bush go at it.

If Romney was the President right now I would more likely than not be doing exactly the same thing he was fine, Obama is fine, etc.

Just like any pro wrestler can do a body-slam I don't know who the WWE champ is, but I am sure he can bench over 300 lbs.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 26, 2015, 01:32:28 PM »
What is more real Politics or Pro Wrestling?

In both you scream as loudly and taunt the other, but then put on a fake show and don't actually do anything.

To summarize why does anyone care anymore about Politics than who the current WWE champ is?

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Reading Anxiety
« on: August 25, 2015, 03:43:06 PM »
As Loki says you can retake with no repercussion as far I am aware schools have done away with averaging scores.

As to the reading anxiety it is a different kind of test than what most undergrads are you used to. In undergrad you basically learn information and regurgitate it, but the LSAT, law school and the legal profession is not really regurgitating facts it is learning to analyze issues with a few facts quickly.

As an example gay marriage was a recent Supreme Court decision there is no dispute about the facts. The lawyers all agreed on who was involved in the lawsuit, what the issue was etc, the lawyers had on both sides had to use these facts and analyze them to create an argument. 

Just as in a law school exam you will essentially be given a fact-pattern such as this. The exam Obama gave to his students at U of Chicago in 1996.  . These facts are completely made up, but you will use what you learned in class to offer analysis to the questions. Reciting a list of the cases you read during the year or the facts of those cases on the test would result in an F.  Instead in the first fact pattern involving a lesbian couples right to children and state action you will have to apply the 14th Amendment, fundamental right cases etc that you learned to the situation then do an IRAC, which will result in a conclusion either for or against the couple (you will not be marked down for saying they should have the kid or not you simply make an argument and reach a decision." My favorite quote from BarBri was that one of two lawyers in every case is wrong, but if you don't make an argument then your in trouble. 

Then when you are an attorney a client will come to your office with a problem. Their problem is unlikely to fit any fact pattern you learned in law school, but you will hear their issue and apply the law as you know it. For example a client comes into your office saying the City will not let him do his Monthly Muslim Midnight marches through the residential neighborhood in the fictional City/State of Wazoo that Obama made up.

You will know Freedom of Religion exists, but you will also know there are time manner and place restrictions on the exercise of speech-religion etc along with a few other things I have long since forgot since Con-Law 2 I read Obama's Con-law 2 exam and now just realized how much I had forgotten : (

The point of all this is that law school and the legal profession is different. There is no "right answer" learning to obtain facts and analyze them very precisely is what the LSAT tests and it is not a fact driven test such where they ask questions with black & white answers. I.E. Who was the First President of the U.S. there is no debate on that question and that is the type of fact driven scenario most students are used to including myself before law school.

So you are right to be anxious it is a nerve wrecking test, but it is only the first step. Study, practice and do as well as you. Do not put unrealistic expectations on yourself I am sure I and everyone else on this board would love to see you get a 180 on it, but there is a 99% chance that is not going to happen. Instead you will study and I would your score will be somewhere between 150-160, which can get you into a number of law schools, but 99% of lawyers did not get a 180 or attend Harvard or Yale Law School so you have to be willing to accept that. Study your butt off get an LSAT score see what your options realistically are then make a decision to attend law school, forget law school, or retake the test, but step 1 is taking the first test.

I have seen so many people talk about law school and put off the LSAT and their life for years and now that I am 32 many of those people I went to undergrad with never ended up taking the LSAT let alone attending law school, but they put their lives on hold for 4-5 years thinking they weren't quite ready for the test. Meanwhile I took it and I did not set any records on the LSAT, but I did well enough to get into an ABA school with a solid scholarship and passed the bar first time. I am not a genius by any stretch of the imagination, but I took the steps necessary and didn't overthink the process. I hope you will do the same and wish you the best of luck.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Reading Anxiety
« on: August 25, 2015, 11:43:36 AM »
I am not sure what reading anxiety means, but I think if you don't like reading then law school may not be for you.

The LSAT is a very tame version of what law school will be like and that is a joke compared to the bar exam.

What I tell anyone interested in attending law school is to study for the LSAT and take it. If you hate studying for the LSAT odds are you will hate law school or if you don't do well enough to go to law school then you know that door is closed.

I think far to many people put the cart ahead of the horse and start putting all this what "ifs" etc etc, but take the LSAT and it will be stressful it is not an easy test. If you don't like pressure then law is probably not for you it is a high pressure profession, but if the pressure is a little intimidating and it is something you can deal with then join the club of the legal profession. None of it is easy.

Don't aid someone in a crime that is unethical.

Hypo #1
Lawyers contacts Mexican family and tells them don't bother filling out paperwork just sneak across the border and into my office, once you have entered illegally then I can fix everything. (No good he encouraged them to break the law and then he will fix it.)

Hypo #2
Mexican family illegally enters country and obtains housing, employment, etc then employer wants verification of immigration status. Family goes to attorney office and asks for help.  Attorney fills out paperwork goes to court do whatever he can within the law to keep the family employed and in America.  (Ok clients broke the law without attorney knowledge and committed the act attorney can advocate to protect them.)

If you create crime your in trouble, if the bad act already occurred then  an attorney can  use the legal tools available at their disposable to assist a client.

Distance Education Law Schools / Re: taft law school
« on: August 21, 2015, 07:37:02 PM »
I do think LP makesa  point the few and I mean few lawyers that graduate from a DL and pass the bar have displayed reliance and likely have networks established.  The majority of DL attorneys I have met were non-traditional types with backgroudns similar to those described by LP. However, as I am sure even LP would admit very few people graduate from DL school it is very hard to be motivated in an online environment and for those that do get thruogh it the bar passage rates are minimal, because as LP claims they are not spoon-fed the law as ABA schools do.

The ABA model does a better of educating its students I don't think anyone is debating that. In a DL school you are paying less and getting less and the only way to succeed in that environment would be self-motivation, risk, etc which are the qualities a solo has.

I would never recommend a 23 year old right out of college choose anything other than an ABA school. However, the earlier hypo of the 37 year old living in Boise etc ABA is not actually an option.

I don't think anyone is arguing Taft is a "great" school. However, it can work for the right person, but it is a huge risk and odds are it will not work out as is the case for most DL grads, but it certainly can and does happen.

General Board / Are Lawyers Getting Dumber Aritcle?
« on: August 21, 2015, 04:52:39 PM »

Friend just posted this and thought the board could use a new topic.

I think part of the statistical dropoff has to do with over-enrollment between 2006-2009 it seems like admission rates were at an all time high due to the financail crisis etc. Then everybody bitched & moaned that there were to many lawyers no the student body is a little less qualified and this trend will continue as the enrollment will get so low that there will not be enoug lawyers then to many will jump on the band-wagon etc.

Just my two cents. Plus there are 10 practice MBE questions for anyone dying to take their chance on the bar again.

That is a valid point, but I think a lot of legal practice is more or less going to assist someone rectify a prior bad act.

The bank example is a good analogy.

The Banks engaged in robo-signing, bad mortgages, blah blah, and Bank Attorneys will seek to validate a Bank's authority to foreclose even if was initially done illegally. 

Conversely, the homeowner being foreclosed likely did not make payments and is holding over in the home. Their attorney will represent them to keep them in their home and rectify their failure to pay.

There are hundreds of examples of that and basically any time you are in a litigation scenario you are resolving some prior unlawful act.

A Transnational Attorney is preventive so it is a little different, but even there a client may want to do as little as possible and get to a gray-area of lawful/unlawful.

In summary the legal legal profession is not all Lolipops and Rainbows.

Excellent points.

Basically, if your gong into the legal profession expect your client to have done something wrong.

Something as wholesome as representing the Catholic Church, is not without its illegal activities such as child molestation, taking land from people and god knows what else. Of course they do plenty of good things as well and that is the case with any client.

Very few people are just terrible with no redeming quality. Illegal immigrants I could justify representing them and I could justify forcing them out.

The banks are a perfect example. Did banks do shady stuff that led to the mortgage meltdown? Yep. Are their deadbeats that did not pay these shady organizations? Yep.  I wouldn't say either is some righteous person and I could see arguing for either side.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 56