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 - dmitrik4
Pages:  2 3 4 5 6 ... 13
« on: November 26, 2006, 11:00:11 PM »
don't worry about it. some firms (like mine) prefer to interview all the candidates from a particular school before they decide who from that school gets an offer. maybe you had some late callbacks from your school. or maybe someone else declined. whatever...doesn't matter.
and BTW...it only SEEMS like they're going to make you "rich." it's not as much money as it seems at this point. know what you're going to do with that money before you start, and stick to that plan. it's a lot of money/week, but there aren't that many weeks, esp if (like i did) you have bills backing up before that first paycheck.
« on: November 26, 2006, 10:54:02 PM »
why would you not consider writing ConLaw in that format? how would you do it and still be effective in analyzing the issue(s) at hand?
IRAC/CRAC isn't some sort of gimmick...it's there b/c that's how legal issues are most efficiently analyzed, no matter what their nature. there will always be a central question to predict (which might itself be based on several other sub-questions). there will be some sort of rule of law pertinent to that question; some rule that offers guidance. you'll have a set of facts that must be compared to the facts giving rise to said rule. based on that comparison, you offer a conclusion/prediction.
conlaw is no different. "federal statute #101 makes it illegal to do Y. Mr. Citizen was arrested for doing Y and charged under statute 101. he has filed suit in federal court, claiming that the statute is unconstitutional. discuss."
IRAC/CRAC applies pefectly to this generic (and common) form of ConLaw question. does the statute violate or take away a substantive right? there's a due process analysis to go through there. does the law treat Mr. Citizen differently than other people? there's an equal protection analysis. both of them are easily handled w/ IRAC/CRAC, and trying to do it another way is asking for trouble, IMO.
« on: November 25, 2006, 10:01:20 AM »
I thought that the benefit-detriment theory of consideration was "out-dated". Most courts, since the Restatement of Contracts in 1933 came out, use the bargain theory. I notice that when most people speak of consideration they use the legal-detriment theory.
you're right that the "bargained-for" theory is the one to use; however, when people speak of "benefit-detriment," they are speaking of a bargained-for legal detriment. in other words, did the party voluntarily forego some legal right?
E.g., Billy's uncle promises to pay 20-year-old Billy $100 on December 1 if Billy does not smoke cigarettes during November. Billy does not smoke during November. Billy has suffered a legal detriment which had had bargained for, b/c he had no pre-existing obligation not to smoke; he gave up the "right" to smoke in exchange for the promise of $100.
in this situation, Billy has furnished consideration for his uncle's promise, even though: A) the uncle does not seem to have benefitted from Billy's not smoking; and B) Billy himself has not suffered a detriment (he's actually benefitted) by not smoking.
this likely would not have passed the old "benefit/detriment" test b/c no "benefit" passed to Billy's uncle...but Billy's non-smoking is adequate consideration (even if Billy doesn't smoke anyway
) b/c Billy had no existing obligation to undertake that behavior.
« on: October 18, 2006, 07:57:06 PM »
I still love that movie, but there's not much in it that is anything like my LS experience.
+1, although i did know some people with similarly huge outlines.
« on: October 18, 2006, 07:55:34 PM »
i'm not sure that's the rationale behind the lower schools' curves, but even assuming it is, i don't think it works. widener (the local school in that position) has a very low curve and had the lowest July '06 PA bar passage rate among local schools. i know some folks who transferred out of widener, and they are all extremely intelligent and will probably make great lawyers. none of them were happy about the curve.
i agree that that would be a better gauge except that an increasing number of law schools don't rank students. for exmaple, my school announced GPA cutoffs for dean's list, etc, but those lumped the entire student body together. only at graduation did people find out with any certainty what percentile range they finished in (and that only if they earned some type of honors).
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:22:28 PM »
THE TEN "CAUSAL SYMPTOMS" OF "A.D.D." LISTED IN THE DSM IV:
RARELY DO children AFFLICTED "WITH A.D.D."
1) OBEY SCHOOLWORK DIRECTIVES
2) SUSTAIN ATTENTION TO SCHOOLWORK
3) BOTHER WITH SCHOOLWORK DETAILS
4) TRY TO AVOID DISTRACTIONS FROM SCHOOLWORK
5) TRY TO AVOID MISTAKES IN DOING SCHOOLWORK
6) LISTEN TO THE TEACHER'S DIRECTIVES
7) REMEMBER SCHOOL ROUTINES
8 PREPARE FOR SCHOOLWORK
9) ORGANIZE SCHOOLWORK TASKS
10) LIKE TO DO SCHOOLWORK
damn, sounds like every kid's dream task list. when you were a kid, did you do most of the stuff on that list? or did you try to avoid it at every turn? hell yes you did...that's part of being a kid. that stuff is BORING...even now.
i only did it b/c my parents would kick my ass if i didn't. that's some brilliant analysis.
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:17:35 PM »
dont worry, considering the only thing employers care about is how well you can research and write, its safe to say that this guy is missing the absolutely most important thing about law school. He is certainly sabotaging his own career out of sheer laziness.
yep. and eventually em will find out that you can't cheat on the bar exam...so there's a good chance em won't end up practicing law in any case.
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:14:24 PM »
i noticed that as well my first year. many profs go a little easier on 1Ls...i know my evidence prof (an extremely nice person, and one of my favorite profs) was incredibly demanding of 2 & 3Ls in the classroom, esp if you weren't prepared. but i got the impression she was a little more forgiving of 1Ls.
the bottom line is, most profs will treat you with as much respect as you earn. they'll treat you like professionals, b/c you are.
The professors aren't monsters, the law school system is. The forced curve is the real problem. It makes us compete against one another
the curve is the only effective way to ensure some sort of objectivity in grading. it assumes that the average student in every section of a given class is about equal; an assumption i have no reason to doubt. would you rather get stuck w/ the torts prof who only hands out Bs and lower, while your other classmates get the softie prof who can't bear to give anyone less than a B+? that's hardly fair.
the problem with a curve is that not every 1L curve is created equal. some schools set the curve at a 3.2; others set it at a 2.5. unless employers are aware of what the curve at a given school is, the students at the latter school are at a disadvantage relative to the students at the former.
one thing i've noticed is that the lower-tier schools tend to have tougher curves...some think that makes it tougher for the top students to transfer out, ensuring that they'll keep paying tuition for two more years.
« on: October 04, 2006, 06:33:46 PM »
^^^ this CAN be, but isn't necessarily, true. Big firms generally provide plenty of opportunity to do pro bono work (often, more than at smaller firms), where a young associate can get experience doing all those things (under supervision, of course). within my first 2 weeks, i was sitting in depositions, talking to the client, and helping the 3rd-yr associate running the case to plan our discovery and trial strategy.
one thing that's useful to keep in mind is that YOU, and only you, are responsible for your career. your career is going to be what you make it, and if you are content to simply bill time working on projects fed to you, your scenario can certainly be reality.
it all comes back to the idea that one needs to find the firm that fits. no one can say with any authority that "X kind of firm is bad/good/etc." they all have their positives and negatives beyond what conventional wisdom says. i know plenty of people who have left for smaller firms, and plenty who have moved the other way.
« on: October 03, 2006, 10:36:03 PM »
there are big firms that pay well and don't require inhumane hours. however, for that reason they're usually not at the top of the typical AmLaw, etc rankings, which usually use the profit per partner statistic. the firms with high PPP get there with lotsa hours and high billing rates. as with the USNWR school rankings, those firm rankings seem to translate (deservedly or undeservedly) into prestige, which is where a lot of people go wrong, IMO. it seems that for a lot of people at top schools, firms not starting with "Skadden," "Cravath," "Wachtell," etc aren't worth trying on.
one nice thing about law firms is that there is usually one out there to suit you. the bad thing is that there is precious little information and opportunity to identify that firm before one typically has to commit to a place.
i suppose that results in people going with the info they do have, which often is the aforementioned and self-perpetuating "prestige" factor. it strikes me as similar to the interviewing process, where firms try to identify the best candidates on pretty limited info (resulting in a possible over-reliance on GPA).
Pages:  2 3 4 5 6 ... 13