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 - Groundhog
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  8 9 10 11 12 ... 398
« on: December 09, 2012, 12:33:16 AM »
I don't think most law school applications ask about that. And, at least for CA, the state bar questionnaire asks about fitness to practice law. I'd be extremely surprised if, absent other circumstances, a history of depression alone caused any eyebrow raising at the moral character and fitness committee. A recent DUI, on the other hand...
« on: December 09, 2012, 12:32:07 AM »
Like you said, it's extremely hypothetical.
You don't know what grades you'll get this year—or next Fall.
But let's say, for argument's sake, you do. The trade-off then is (the possibility of) a slightly higher GPA vs. applying early. It's probably a wash. Going complete early gives you more consideration and the most chance at the few spots that are truly competitive in a law school class. A higher GPA always helps in that it can move you from the maybe to yes category, but you're again assuming a lot about your grades.
A middle of the road option would be simply to apply as early as possible and then update schools after your Fall semester grades are in. It's unlikely that any of your target schools will have accepted or denied you before then.
If it were me, I'd apply early and hope for good grades next Fall.
« on: December 06, 2012, 09:08:31 PM »
It's not clear from your story but what did you get in the second incident? Were you in possession of alcohol or just intoxicated?
Also, from the first story it's not entirely clear if that's a criminal sanction or a student sanction.
Either way, it will be a difficult hurdle to overcome. As you may or may not know, you have to report these incidents to law school and the state bar regardless of whether or not they remain or will remain on your record.
The trouble is that both involve criminal conduct, regardless of whether or not the first incident was criminal or 'merely' student. It shows that you, as a young student, have had trouble with the law due to the use of drugs and alcohol. Yes, they are relatively minor, and people who are convicted murderers and who have DUIs are admitted to law school and the bar, but it will probably cause many schools second thoughts.
« on: December 04, 2012, 09:00:24 PM »
The specifics will depend on your state, but generally, a history of mental illness by itself is not sufficient grounds to deny you a positive moral character determination. The determination is based off of whether or not you have a condition that would prevent you from practicing law.
« on: December 04, 2012, 08:57:58 PM »
Welcome! Please feel free to ask any questions about law school, applications, etc. you like.
« on: December 01, 2012, 05:49:54 PM »
« on: November 30, 2012, 08:59:42 PM »
At many firms the work you do before and after passing the bar/getting sworn in is no different. There will be a senior attorney signing off on your work. Obviously until then, you can't go to court or do anything like that without supervision.
« on: November 30, 2012, 08:57:27 PM »
Wow, belated bump.
« on: November 30, 2012, 08:56:46 PM »
Take symbolic logic, because it prepares you very well for the LSAT and parsing dense sentences to their meaning.
Other than that, as the above poster said, classes that focus on writing and reading are good. Some undergraduate professors in Political Science and Philosophy use socratic method. Law-related undergraduate classes won't impress anyone but they can give you an idea about the various fields of the law and what it's actually like.http://www.uic.edu/cba/cba-depts/economics/undergrad/table.htm
has a list of average LSAT scores by major. While I'm not suggesting you pick your major based on what gets the highest LSAT scores, you could certainly use it as a good list of classes that require critical thinking. Note that pre-law and criminology majors do the worst, suggesting those classes aren't particularly good at teaching the kind of critical thinking required by the LSAT and law school, if you believe the LSAT is a good indicator of law school success.
« on: November 30, 2012, 08:48:23 PM »
I believe so. It seems like arising out of the same T&O is the key. See
RULE 20. PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES
(a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined.
(1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.
Note it does not have a particular requirement that the plaintiff claim relief from everyone.
Compare with below, the procedure for adding defendants:
2) Defendants. Persons—as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem—may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
(3) Extent of Relief. Neither a plaintiff nor a defendant need be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. The court may grant judgment to one or more plaintiffs according to their rights, and against one or more defendants according to their liabilities.
So I think if you had A suing B and C, because they arise from the same O&T, D can join.
If you had D suing C and D does not have a claim against B, obviously he couldn't add B, but then A could join and then get B involved.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  8 9 10 11 12 ... 398