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 - Bob Loblaw Esq.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18  20 21 22 23
« on: April 26, 2007, 07:28:15 PM »
This was taken from the UNC site
Applying as a Transfer Student
As a result of collaborative conversations with deans of other North
Carolina law schools, the University of North Carolina School of Law
will no longer accept transfer applications from students currently
enrolled at law schools in North Carolina-even from students who are
academically qualified-unless they present a compelling case for
enrollment at UNC. Better job opportunities, better course
selection, or lower tuition are not viewed as compelling reasons.
The UNC School of Law will continue to offer a very limited number of
transfer opportunities to academically qualified residents of North
Carolina attending law schools outside of North Carolina who present
compelling reason(s) for attending UNC. A desire to follow a spouse
who has been transferred to North Carolina by the military or a
business, for example, might be viewed as a compelling reason. Files
will otherwise be evaluated using the standards below.
To apply to the UNC School of Law as a transfer applicant, you must
have successfully completed one year of law study at a law school
approved by the Association of American Law Schools or the American
Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar.
No more than 28 credits of work from another law school will be
credited. No student will be admitted who is ineligible to return to
the institution last attended. To be competitive for admission,
transfer applicants should be originally admissible to the School of
Law and be performing superior academic work at their current law
« on: April 25, 2007, 07:35:51 PM »
... in fact, if you look in the yellow pages you will find a bunch of crappy lawyers who passed the bar.
Since a majority of them come from ABA approved schools, we agree that ABA certification doesn't really act as an effective screening device for the ultimate quality of the lawyer?
I do agree that for whether logical or not, the school name will carry weight. Ultimate, you hope that competence will win the day, even if it is an up hill fight.
Agreed. I would argue, however, that the percentage of crappy lawyers graduated from a particular institution increases as you slide down the scale of selectivity in admissions. So I wouldn't say that the generalizations one draws from the school's name is totally illogical on the whole. Although, as with any stereotype, a given species from within the genus might defy the presumption.
...here's what I found on the selectivity (from the NOVUS site)
A Bachelor's degree is not
required for JD Law Admission. The Law School requires only one of the following to be admitted to Novus Law SchoolSchool of Law:
An Associate’s Degree or
60 semester units or
Passed School Exam or
Five years professional or technical management or administrative experience
I am not sure exactly what "passed school exam" means, but I suppose it is some sort of competency test. Then again, maybe not, as it seems that you could work a part time gig answering phones for a couple years and have the requisite qualifications.
« on: April 25, 2007, 03:40:50 PM »
one of my friends at school cuts the sleeves off all his shirts. is that what the 2d. amendment is talking about?
sorry i had to do it.
yes, I believe so. however, i believe the arms must in fact be bare, or as I like to say, "bear." The example below is an obvious misuse of the 2nd amendment.
« on: April 23, 2007, 01:34:38 PM »
§2-202 - The Parol Evidence Rule
• The parol evidence rule is a tool that is used to determine what evidence is admissible in ascertaining the terms of a contract and their meaning when the parties’ agreement is in a record.
• The parol evidence rule is based upon the idea that if the evidence of an agreement is in a record, that record is a better indication of the parties’ actual agreement in some circumstances.
• Revised §2-202 only applies when one of the two fact situations is present. The first situation is when there are “terms with respect to which the confirmatory records of the parties agree.” The second situation is when “terms…which are otherwise set forth in a record intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein.”
• General Rule: Parol Evidence is NOT allowed if:
o There is a fully integrated contract (final and complete expression of agreement);
o The evidence is of an earlier written or oral agreement or a contemporaneous oral agreement within the scope of the contract; and
o The evidence attempts to vary. Add, or contradict the terms of the contract.
• General Rule: Parol evidence MAY be admissible if:
o Offered to show lack of consideration, fraud, duress, or mistake;
o Offered to show a condition precedent to effectiveness of the final contract;
o Offered to explain or interpret terms of the contract;
o It concerns a modification of the contract (later agreement)
o It concerns a “naturally omitted” term; or
o Separate consideration was given for the parol agreement.
• Restatement § 214 – Exceptions to the parol evidence rule
o (c) the meaning of the writing
Exception to the exception – plain mean rule – of the meaning of the writing is plain, then parol evidence not admitted.
• Parol evidence analysis
1. Is there a writing?
2. Is it integrated?
(If one or more terms of the agreement have been fully, finally and clearly expressed in the writing, it is a partial integration – that is it is a final statement o those terms.
If writing does not set out any term in full, final and certain form, it is unintegrated.
Fully integrated – complete and exclusive
If it is integrated, only consistent terms.
3. Is it partially integrated?.
• Why parol evidence?
Maybe to prevent abuse of contract writers
Force individuals to be very specific in their contract wording
« on: April 19, 2007, 08:01:20 PM »
if by "suit" you mean bathing suit, then yes.
but seriously, yes, wear a suit.
« on: April 19, 2007, 03:33:41 PM »
i'm sorry. Too funny to pass up.
« on: April 19, 2007, 03:31:39 PM »
« on: April 18, 2007, 11:03:45 AM »
just suck it up and retake the lsat; at least you know that 140 is a bad score, so now take some measures to bring it up to average. Going from a 140 to 150 may take some effort, but it is not as hard as 150-160. Work it like its your job for the next 6-8 months and you may surpirse yourself. If you end up not improving, so what; a 140 is not exactly a golden ticket anyway.
you can definately do better than cooley, especially with your 3.6. I finishing up 1L at a mid T2 with a 3.1, 153. you can do it!
And one of the previous posters it correct, you have more of a chance of getting booted than stuck at TC.
« on: April 17, 2007, 04:20:19 PM »
I am working for BIGLAW this summer, and I REQUIRED THE FIRM to submit to a drug test.
« on: April 10, 2007, 02:48:02 PM »
maybe you could tell the partners that lame alibi and they'll let you off the hook.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18  20 21 22 23