General Off-Topic Board / Re: Say the first thing that pops into your head after looking at the 'tar above you« on: March 19, 2009, 05:07:56 PM »
Later? (Lame, I know.)
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.
Never never never....thats completely welcome! I appreciate it alot! I am trying to weight my options between the two schools. i do still plan on transferring, but I do accept the fact that I may end up going all three years to either school. any thoughts on whittier with 12,000 scholarship or cal western without a scholarship? thanks alot!
I'm going to step in and state the obvious. The ethics rules cited (at times) in this thread apply to LAWYERS, not law students. The bar can only discipline LAWYERS (or former lawyers) for the practice of law without a "license." The rules in question are concerned with suspended or disbarred attys providing advice, not with law students providing advice. It is likely INAPPROPRIATE for a law student to provide advice, and any conversation with an Earth person about a legal issue by a law student should be prefaced by the "I'm not a lawyer thing."
You are obviously correct. In my professional responsibility class, however, we read two cases where law students were denied admission to the bar because they had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law using their credentials as law students. (I actually think one of these had pretended to be a law graduate, but the other was merely helping people with divorces or something before graduating from law school and without the supervision of a licensed attorney.) Ordinarily, I would be with you that concerns about C&F with respect to offering legal advice are probably overblown, but LawDog, in particular, holds himself out to be an expert in a way that could prove problematic, particularly given his constant puffery about his training, experience, integration into the legal world, and positions of responsibility (on admissions committees?). Perhaps more important, as you indicate, it's completely inappropriate for law students to offer legal advice, regardless of any specific model (or adopted) rules.
No matter hjow much of an "expert" I hold myself to be, everyone on this site knows I am an 0L who begin's law school in the fall.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THIS GUY. THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT SOME OF THESE ARROGANT, OVERPRIVILEDGED WHITE BOYS AND GIRLS (YES, I WENT THERE!) CANNOT HANDLE BEING INTELLECTUALLY SPANKED REPEATEDLY BY A BLACK MAN. And they cannot handle a Black man who holds himself to be their equal. THEY ARGUE WITH ME NO MATTER WHAT I SAY. I could be the one posting your comments and it wouldn't make a difference. This is "identity politics"...nothing else. Many times, I tell them things that are 100% correct, and they argue with me just for the sake of it. And their logic is stupid, just like it was below...flaming stupid. Why did that idiot even broach the license issue? It really was only brought up to say..."Hey, Lawdog...you're such a know it all. Well...well...how about this? I bet you could get in trouble with the bar!" (waaaaaah...waaaaah! lol.)
Just flamin'. They hold themselves up to be admissions experts and legal experts more than anybody. Atleast when I speak, I speak from some experience. They talk out of their asses.
Like when looking at the Chris Brown situation. I tell them that, if they really want to be lawyers, they will try to sharpen their skills by figuring out how they might defend Chris Brown. I tell them that a future law prof could give them an analogous fact-pattern on an exam and instruct them to defend Chris Brown.
They refuted that too, saying, "I don't wanna think like a lawyer...I'll do that when I am in law school."
How stupid does that sound? These people claim to have a passion for the law. Lawyers are born, not made! And if you love the law, u think about it constantly...you eat, sleep and breath the law. You wouldn't need to "wait" to start thinking like a lawyer.
Some of these people are just straight-up idiots.
I don't understand why everyone is jumping on LawDog. He made some really good points. Maybe my law school is atypical (doubt it), but I can make a list of the people who really want to be lawyers and those who came to law school for the "wrong reasons." It's obvious. Law school isn't just like any other program. Law school is super-intense and you are studying the SAME SUBJECT all day long. You had better love it or you'll be miserable. BTW, I have an MBA so I have done other graduate work. Law school is completely different.
There are some in my section who are already bored and aren't even doing the reading anymore. Also, there are some who are keeping up but are thinking of quitting because they hate it. I've often thought that their spots should have gone to other applicants who really wanted it. Maybe those applicants had a slightly lower UGPA or LSAT but would have studied their butts off and made fantastic lawyers.
Bottom line, I agree with LawDog that the adcomms SHOULD be going through the files with an eye for who really wants to be a lawyer and who is just doing it for the money, to escape the economy, or some other disingenuous reason. Would you really want a lawyer representing you that had no interest in law? I wouldn't.
(But I am realistic enough to realize that there are reasons why adcomms accept the highest numbers. I'm just sayin'...)
+1! That's what I am saying. You guys who disagree with me have been doing some very selective reading, b/c i said that some of the people who have recently decided to go to law school have done so for good reasons. I said that many had job offers that were just too good to pass up, or deferred, like I did, but then couldn't come back for several years b/c of a family tragedy...or other reasons. i said I was not lumping everyone together.
Now. I am going to ignore the perpetual elephant that inhabits almost every post I write on and just chalk it up to jealousy, ignorance or whatever. I don't mind people ganging up on me b/c I am secure enough to know when I have made a solid argument. I also know that, in this game, if people gang up on you, you are the strongest combatant. Some of these people are going to disagree with me no matter what I write, even if their disagreements are logically inconsistent with their own stated principles.
But make no mistakew about it. I am no snake-oil salesman. I have been one of the best all of my life, and I will continue being that way. I love frustrating people; it proves my superiority over them. I also love it when I know I am right. I love to give credit where it is due, and many of you deserve a lot of credit for being such worthy adversaries; you make me think (no patronization here). But some others of you need to check yourselves, and read my comments fully before you write, b/c you look absolutely foolish.
You = 0L
Miss P = 3L
So yeah, I think I'd be more prone to listen to her than your hypothesizing about what law school might be like.
I am technically not an 0L. And many a 3L graduate knowing nothing about the law. And...did you read that I have had some law school? Read th post, fool.
Oh really? You have a year of law school under your belt and you're still this hopelessly uninformed on the process and what law school is actually about? I think that's scarier.
You talking about one win in moot court sounds a bit like Al Bundy bragging about scoring 4 touchdowns in a single game at Polk High School. No one cares. And it doesn't make your (incorrect) points any more valid.
ETA: And to the additional added portion of your post (which you added AFTER I quoted the entirety of your post as previously shown, above), you continue to show that you are either a fantastic troll or really, utterly clueless. If you are really trying to push that people should have more respect for the craft of the law, maybe you should have more respect for creating a cogent, well-articulated argument. If so many people take issue with what you're saying, perhaps you should do some self reflection and understand that perhaps you aren't showing proper respect for the legal craft by arguing sloppily. Anyway, have fun with your self-congratulatory posts.
You keep saying my argfuments are flawed, but offer no tangible evidence to refute my logic. So...do it.
It shoukld be easy. QQUIT MAKING ACCUSATIONS AND MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS. AND I AM NOT CLULESS ABOUT ANYTHING. I get admitted...I have gotten admitted and i hope I see you at Harvard or wherever it is you think you are going. You suck and you know you suck.
If my arguments are flawed...PROVE IT. highlight a sentence and point out the flaw. identify it by name and tell us all WHY it is flawed. Go ahead!
Not to ask silly questions, but what is a bluebook?
(To answer the OP, it varies by school. Here, there are IT people, and you get extra time if your work is lost due to crash, etc. We also don't use exam software, and you have to submit electronically.)
So why didn't you apply to a bunch of schools like Alabama, American, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Oregon, Tulane, Washington, and Wisconsin? You'd have surely got in at all of those and similar schools, and at least a few of them would have thrown stacks of cash at you.