I'm looking everywhere for one, but I've had no luck.
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 - fljames989
I was recently offered a job at a small Law Firm in Tallahassee, FL. The firm has less than 5 attorneys in 2 offices.
I am in the top 20% of my class at a Florida T4 school. They job only offers $11.00 for "summer law clerking in both civil and criminal areas."
My question is, is this the best I'll get as a 1L from a t4? I want to reject this offer and look for jobs that pay more but I'm scared of being left with nothing come summer time. Every I've talked to says "a bird in the hand...", but I wonder what my chances are of doing better.
Also, I've heard some people say that they learned a lot working in a smaller practice, I'm actually scared that all I'll be doing is making coffee and copies.
I'd appreciate some input thanks
« on: December 11, 2005, 11:19:53 PM »
Well, that doens't really answer my question. What if the conveyance was "to B for life, then to A's (who is dead) children (a, b, c), but if A's children smoke marijuana, then the part of who ever smoked marijuana to their children."
And we can say that A is dead.
Then who are the life in being (lives)? Is it at the death of the first in the class, or the whole class that we run the 21 years?
« on: December 11, 2005, 10:52:43 PM »
I hate RAP.
For those of you that have BarBri first year review page 31 says, "Executory Intesrest Following Defeasible Fee Violates the Rule."
The example they give has to do with a conveyance, "To J for so long as no marijuana is smoked on the premises, then to C." They claim this violates RAP because someone might "light up" years after J and C die.
But how would this apply if the contingency is not tied to the property but rather to lives in being?
O conveys "to A for life, then to A's children (a, b, c), but if A's children smoke marijuana, then the part of who ever smoked marijuana to their children."
I think in this case, and I might be wrong, the life in beings are A, B, C. And they will all be dead an incapable of smoking marijuana 21 years after their death, so no rule violation.
However, I migth be wrong in assuming that the rule warrants the death of all the children? If it's only the first one, (i.e. A dies first) then I could see how the rule might be violated since B or C might toke up in the very distant future.
Final on wednesday, going crazy.