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 - DirkDiggler
« on: November 16, 2009, 09:15:01 AM »
As mentioned above, this turns entirely on where you want to be post-graduation. Assuming you want to be in the area, though, the firm's reputation becomes a consideration. If it's a reputable firm, work there.
As a 1L, you just need to get some summer experience. Why not get paid for it?
« on: October 24, 2009, 04:27:55 PM »
I'm with big-fat-box on this one . . . if you want to leave school, call it a "leave of absence" simply to keep your options open.
Other than that, do whatever you want.
« on: September 27, 2009, 08:31:30 PM »
I agree on the defense-prosecution conflict and potential hiring bias. However, remember that the Federal Public Defender's counterpart is the U.S. Attorney's Office--not the district attorney. DA=state, USAtty=federal.
And, FWIW, my understanding is that anything federal is more prestigious and, therefore, competitive than its state counterpart.
« on: August 24, 2009, 07:17:54 PM »
Play lacrosse. If you don't, you'll (1) regret it, (2) be miserable, and (3) waste the same amount of time doing something less productive. And, on the upside, you'll have a great conversation starter for interviews next fall.
I know several posters--Trivium, for example--that would agree. You need leisure time.
« on: June 28, 2009, 11:03:12 PM »
The summer's first six weeks:
Positive -- there's an unending work supply so I can take on as much as I can handle.
Negative -- little to no feedback on written work.
A positive or negative, depending on your perspective: I've done little to no work on the investigative side. Everything is strictly research, legal analysis, and writing.
This evidently changes when you complete 50 hrs (I believe) of legal coursework. You then become eligible to go into court, at which point you'll get more involved with investigations.
« on: March 03, 2009, 09:14:03 PM »
I have a question that likely doesn't merit its own thread and is somewhat related to this thread:
I'm a 1L. I have a summer government job secured. I want to stay in my law school's geographic area. Recently, a professor, who used to practice in the area, said she knows a firm (small to medium) that would be a great fit for my interests, their needs, personalities, etc. This prospect interests me. My question: should I contact this firm before next fall to let them know I'm interested for a 2L gig? If so, when?
« on: March 03, 2009, 08:57:36 PM »
Two weeks after interviewing they told me interviews had concluded and I was still being considered. I received an offer approx. two weeks later.
It's a work-study position with a desired 12-month commitment. I'm a 1L.
What should I expect?
« on: December 18, 2008, 01:33:44 PM »
Ran through this hypo with my study partner before reading the responses. Basically came up with the same analysis as Reezy:
Edís v. Sportsland
Third-Party Beneficiary: This might be a stretch. In construction contracts, when a subcontractor fails to file a mechanicís lien against the home owner (assuming the general contractor has also defaulted), subcontractors can resort to third-party beneficiary doctrine for recovery. Edís can argue that the contract between Sportsland and Fredís was intended to benefit Edís as a third-party subcontractor. This is likely an unavailing claim because Sportsland had no control over who Fredís selected as a subcontractor, and, possibly, did not even know that Fred would subcontract the work. If Edísí work had actually benefitted Sportsland, this claim would hold more water. Without more, though, it is weak.
Edís v. Sportsworld
Unjust enrichment: likely unavailing claim because Edís had no direct relationship with Sportsworld. Edís is likely an officious intermeddler attempting to recover for unsolicited activities.
Sportsland v. Sportsworld
I have nothing. Perhaps advise all parties to turn Fredís account over to Sallie Maeís collection agents.
« on: December 17, 2008, 02:21:35 PM »
My study partner and I outlined this response. It seems like we're missing an argument for Alice being able to recover Nov. 14 damages.
Nov. 8 Flight
Charterís 1.5 hour delay is likely a breach.
Anticipatory Repudiation: discuss whether or not Aliceís breach was justified despite receiving assurances.
Assuming sheís justified: Aliceís Likely Recoverable Damages = Price she paid Charter + cost of commercial flight.
Materiality: time was of the essence, so a delay in performance is likely material. However, a good argument can be made otherwise.
However, Charterís failure to bring a claim for this weekís flight means they are potentially conceding that they breached by not having the flight ready on time.
Nov. 14 Flight
Charterís recovery for Aliceís breach on the remaining flights depends on whether or not Charterís Nov. 8 breach was material. If the Nov. 8 breach was material, Alice is justified in terminating the rest of the contract. If her termination is justified, she would be able to recover expectation damages for Nov. 14 and probably will not recover for Nov. 21 and 28 (based on commercial frustration).
Commercial Frustration: It will depend on whether or not the CFL games were a basic assumption on which the contract was based. Look at the contract language for this (further facts needed). If it says something like, ďflights to Canadian cities,Ē then the games are likely not a basic assumption. If the contract language is something like, ďcharters to CFL games,Ē then the games are a basic assumption. Good arguments could be made for either side.
If Charter tries to recover from Alice for Nov. 21 and 28, she can argue commercial frustration. If Alice tries to recover from Charter for Nov. 21 and 28, they can argue that she was commercially frustrated and that the flights wouldnít have happened regardless.
Foreseeability might be relevant here (as it is under impracticability), but my knowledge is limited.
Mitigation: Alice likely made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages after Charterís Nov. 8 breach.
Nov. 21 Flight
Charter likely cannot recover because the strike had already ended Ė Alice has a commercial frustration defense. The same applies for Alice.
Nov. 28 Flight
Again, based on commercial frustration, most likely no one will recover.
« on: December 13, 2008, 09:01:10 PM »
A former-gf had a Ritalin RX for diagnosed ADD. The diagnosis also allowed her, per (undergrad) university policy, 50% more exam time and private-room testing.
Has anyone heard of any accommodations in LS?