Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

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 - taterstol

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 47
1
Law Firms / Re: Do big firms hire from their support staff??
« on: July 31, 2005, 11:52:45 AM »
So much attitude from uninformed posters!

The poster above is right. There are several people from my 1L section who got 1L summer associate jobs with firms that they paralegaled for before law school (a few in new york). I wouldn't paralegal for a firm hoping to later get hired, because you might as well just go to law school if that's the only reason you want to do it. But it's definitely a card to play when you do your 1L job search.

summer associate usually = eventual offer unless you screw up big

2
General Board / Re: 1L's Where will you work this summer?
« on: March 31, 2005, 12:06:56 PM »
Law firm here.

3
General Board / Re: 1L Summer Employment Schedule
« on: March 15, 2005, 10:25:04 PM »
I'm working a biglaw summer associate gig this summer too. I really don't think it's bad at most firms. The general consensus I've heard is that they wine you and dine you hardcore so that you'll accept their offer at the end of the summer. If you include "optional" social events maybe it does actually approach 80 hours a week. But those social events are things your wife-to-be can probably attend as well.

4
General Board / Re: NEED HELP ON REAL LIFE CONTRACT QUESTION
« on: March 15, 2005, 10:17:57 PM »
I think the problem here is that this could perhaps be construed as agreeing to an option, not on the final contract. You have an option you can exercise by presenting your SMOG license. But offers without consideration are not binding, so he could revoke any time before you show him the license. Not to mention that it'll just be your word against his.

If this is a contract and you "breach" by choosing to devote your energies elsewhere, I have a hard time seeing what damages he could claim. He would, of course, have a duty to mitigate. Considering how easily he talked you into this, he should be able to find someone else for little cost.

You run the risk of making a large expenditure of money/time/effort for potentially no return. He doesn't like written agreements--I don't like people who don't like written agreements. You shouldn't either; at least not when you're doing business with them and don't have some other significant relationship with them to make them more credible to you.

I'd say get it in writing, or at least agree to tape record an oral agreement that makes it explicit that if you get the license, you have a $1500/wk job. If he's ok with tape recording, I'd be less nervous. If he's apprehensive, it means the reason he doesn't like written agreements is because he doesn't like enforceable agreements.

5
General Board / Re: Final Exam as a model for others.
« on: January 27, 2005, 09:57:31 PM »
I think it's pretty tacky to refuse permission to post your exam answer as a model. It's an honor to be asked. Yes law school is a comptition and the curve matters, but to refuse to do something solely because it might help someone out in the future--and involves no sacrifice on your part--is a pretty crummy way to begin your legal career.

6
General Board / Re: Word of advice
« on: December 14, 2004, 12:00:49 PM »
Gotta love that curve. Exams are all done! Now I'm busy nursing my post-1L-first-semester-just-finished-exams hangover... oy.  :D

7
General Board / Re: Word of advice
« on: December 13, 2004, 12:45:14 PM »
This is true. One more final! (Torts, today).

He was a law student, and dating another law student can be quite stressful! Maybe I'll find a nice med student. They have been using the law library lately (probably to get away from other crazy med students). I know they're med students because their books have color pictures!

8
General Board / Word of advice
« on: December 11, 2004, 11:37:58 PM »
Don't break up with your significant other during exams. Even if you know you want to, it's still kinda a crappy situation.

9
General Board / Re: Funny Torts Hypo
« on: November 19, 2004, 12:24:11 PM »
Re: smoke particles... I agree that it's a stretch, but your Prof said it because there's a case that said it too. It's Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications.

Re: landowner duties... Gladen v. Cleveland Greater Regional Transit Authority affirmed a ruling that a man who was beaten and left unconscious on a subway track could not recover against the Transit Authority when his leg was severed by a train unless he showed that the Transit Authority was reckless, because he was not an invitee (his paid ticket didn't give him privileges to be ON the tracks).

Rowland v. Christian (a california case) got rid of the categories and said that it's one standard of care. Our professor said that this has been adopted in about half the states, while the other half still use the invitee/licensee/trespasser designations.

That was a case about social guests, though, which Sally pretty clearly is not. I think the point is that the law varies a lot by jurisdiction and that there's not one right answer anymore.

I think this is all really fun... there's enough doctrinal ambiguity that you get to have real arguments about what the law should recognize as a battery, or what the duties of a landowner should be. If the result you want is compelling enough (i.e., you want the guy who had smoke blown in his face to recover), then you can manipulate the doctrine and get there.

10
General Board / Re: Funny Torts Hypo
« on: November 18, 2004, 07:54:24 PM »
There's also a small issue (but worth mentioning, I think) of whether Alex is liable to Sally. She was injured on his property. If she's in a state that distinguishes between invitees and licensees/trespassers, then Alex's duty was not to be reckless, and he probably is not liable. If she's in a state that's switched to a single standard of care for landowners, then Alex's duty is not to be negligent regardless of Sally's designation.

So then the question would be whether a reasonable person would have placed the tree so close to the road knowing that motorists could potentially hit it. Again, I think not liable, but worth discussing just to establish that he's not.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 47