Law School 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 - FalconJimmy

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 67
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Belmont.... Risky?
« on: December 04, 2011, 12:03:16 PM »
If he/she wants to practice in TN, he/she is better off going to a school in state.  What I know of the Tn legal market is that they are, ironically (there are only 3 schools in such a big state and one of them is Vandy), unusually hostile to out of state grads.

Yeah, very true.  That's always the big kicker, here.  Plus, if the school, itself, has a good reputation, then the law school, newly accredited or not, will get some of the benefit of the school's general reputation. 

It's just that so many of the reasons why you attend a school in an area you want to practice doesn't apply, here.  For example, let's take schools like Akron or Toledo.  If you're applying for a job in Los Angeles, it's hard to do worse.  Really.  However, if you're applying for a job in either Akron or Toledo, enough judges, senior partners, prosecutors, etc., have Akron and Toledo on their resumes that it isn't a hindrance at all.  Not sure if it's an advantage, versus, say, coming from Michigan or Penn, but it's not a disadvantage in those markets.

However, in the case of a newly accredited school, there AREN'T any senior partners, judges, prosecutors.  You're really building something out of whole cloth.  Being on the ground floor here is NOT good.  There is no advantage to being one of the first to graduate from a school and a whole lot of disadvantages.

If that's the only school he can get into in TN, then yeah, you're right.  However, I have to believe that there are other paths to practicing in TN.  Maybe folks from schools like Ole Miss do well in the TN market.  Not sure if that's true, but if there's a need for lawyers, they have to come from somewhere.

Anyway, sorry, I thought he said the school was in Memphis which, personally, I think is one of the most awesome cities in the country.  I'd live there in a heartbeat, but then I really love music.  (Which is also a great reason to live in Nashville as well.)  I don't think either place is a decision a person would regret.  Though, I do get the impression that Nashville is a lot more Jesus-ey.  If you're not a born again evangelical, you might find it a bit uncomfortable there.

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Belmont.... Risky?
« on: December 04, 2011, 07:52:54 AM »
Personally, I think it's a horrifically bad idea.

First, they're APPLYING for provisional.  They may not get it.  Your degree might not be worth the paper it's printed on.  "We're applying for accreditation" is the battle cry for pretty much every worthless school in America.  Many of them know darned well that they're not going to be accredited, but "we're applying" sounds a heck of a lot better than "we're not".

Second, newly accredited schools have to go a LOOOOONG time before they climb out of the cohort of schools that are considered the absolute worst in the country.  If you're lucky, 10 or 20 years after they get their actual accreditation, they'll be 3rd or 4th tier.  See if you can ring up some Texas Wesleyan grads and find out if they are glad they went there during the past 10 or 20 years while the school went through newly-accredited growing pains.

Now, I'm not saying that this means, necessarily, that the education you get will be bad.  Just explaining some realities, here.

I would look elsewhere.  Seriously.

Also, your GPA is awesome!  Why not re-take the LSAT?  There are a lot of fully accredited schools you could attend RIGHT NOW, and with a higher LSAT, the doors would be opened much wider.  Tennessee is a big ass place, and if you're willing to consider schools from the east tip to the west tip, including private schools, you could get to Chicago in the amount of time it takes you to drive from Memphis to Knoxville.  Pretty much everything from Ohio to MO to TX is within a day's drive of Memphis.  Why limit yourself to a very, very sketchy school in Memphis?

If you were my son, I'd go beyond advising you not to go to Belmont.  I'd tell you it's a genuinely bad idea and that if you do, it's going to be a huge mistake.  Go to one of the dozens of other schools that would have no problem accepting you.

Just my two cents.

Online Law Schools / Re: Expunged Records
« on: December 04, 2011, 07:30:06 AM »
I have noticed that some schools ask about expunged records, and yet most states have a policy of being able to legally say "no" to questions about convictions if expunged. How can it be legal to backdoor it like that?

Things aren't illegal "just because".  They're illegal because there's a law making them illegal.  Can you point to a specific piece of legislation that says that it is illegal to ask about expunged convictions? 

If not, it's not illegal.  Simple as that.  We don't have proscriptive law here (meaning the state doesn't tell us what we CAN do.) 

The state has to allow any forms of conduct that they don't specifically prohibit.

What they have told you is that when asked if you have been convicted, that you do not need to divulge.

However, they haven't said that for special purposes (a security clearance background check, applying to work at sensitive facilities, to join the military, to apply to the state's bar) that you cannot be asked. 

You can connect the dots yourself on this one.  If it's not illegal to ask, and they'll hold it against you if you don't answer truthfully, you need to respond accordingly. 

This reminds me of a guy who came into my office asking about an application.  As we were talking, I mentioned that we run background checks and he needs a clean driving record and no history of felonies.  He claimed that it was ILLEGAL to discriminate against him because he served his time and now he's out.  I told him that's an interesting theory, but that he wasn't eligible to work in my business.  He demanded to see documentation of this policy and wanted to know how it was legal.

Now, more germane to your situation, if the expungement was for something pretty minor (like, say, a juvenile misdemeanor), then I doubt you have much to worry about.  You can probably get a Top Secret clearance in the military and get admitted to the state bar or whatever, provided you show them that your juvenile indescretions are not indicative of the person you are, today.  One way you show them this is by answering their current questions fully and honestly.

Best of luck.

Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students / Re: In a holding pattern...
« on: December 04, 2011, 07:21:35 AM »
In your shoes, one path I'd think about would be:
1.  Putting LSAT prep VERY HIGH on your priorities.  Maybe spend as much as 6 months to a year prepping for it.

2.  The other factor is that your grades, especially your 1L grades (plus maybe first semester of 2L grades) are going to be a huge part of your destiny.  It's possible for you to learn 80-90% of your first year material on your own.  Even just reading through all the E&Es would be huge.  Throw in some Gilberts, etc., and you could really be on to something.  Heck, if you're going to have the time to do it, why not get one of these distance JDs?  Or at least complete the first year's worth.  Use your military tuition reimbursement.

I think most JDs would say that if they could do it all over again, they could pull down much better grades the 2nd time.  I was able to get through the entire E&E on Torts before the semester started and it was my easiest subject this semester.  (Obviously no exam, yet, but we'll see when the grades come in.)  Subjects where I didn't learn it all prior to start of class?  Harder, much harder.

3.  Your deployment?  Will your family basically be at the same place prior to/after?  If so, look into part-time programs within driving distance.  Sometimes that's easier said than done.  There are gigantic swaths of metropolitan America that do NOT have a night program for law.  (Dallas comes to mind... they'd have to drive all the way to Fort Worth.)  Part of the difficulty of law school is the sheer volume of material covered.  If you could take, say, 2 classes at a time, that's a lot easier than taking 5.  Then, when you retire, you could have, say, only 2 years of law school to go, or maybe a year and a half.

Best of luck and thank you for your service.

Law School Admissions / Re: 3.17/175 Chances
« on: December 04, 2011, 07:12:01 AM »
With numbers like that I'd say he's 100% chance of going somewhere and probably a shot at a full ride.

Law School Admissions / Re: 3.17/175 Chances
« on: December 03, 2011, 11:32:46 AM »

Basically, your chances are between nil and exceedingly poor at the schools you listed.

Job Search / Re: Jobs
« on: December 02, 2011, 12:45:50 PM »
good thinking.  I'm sure there are plenty of potential travelling nurses on a law student message board.  Let me guess... you're not the highest producing recruiter in your office are you? 

Online Law Schools / Re: distance learning
« on: November 30, 2011, 08:00:37 AM »
Therefore, I say the bar exam is doing exactly what it should be doing weeding out those who fail to cut the mustard.  While those who fail the bar may appear to have wasted their time, I counter that anyone who has taken to learn the law, in whatever capacity, has improved themselves, and society, overall for a law degree offers more than the ability to practice law. 

I agree with this.  Plus, when push comes to shove, I'm all for giving folks a chance to do something, even if it's a longshot.  It's a free country and people should know the risks, but there are some (maybe many) people who, if given a 1 in 10 shot at being an attorney, WANT to have that 1 in 10 shot.  They don't want some bureaucratic process to turn it into a 0 in 10 shot.

Online Law Schools / Re: distance learning
« on: November 30, 2011, 07:57:51 AM »
Each US District Court in the US sets it own admission requirements, has nothing to do with the ABA but everything to do with state bar membership. Only a few let everyone become members without restrictions - notably USDC North Dakota and Northern District of Illinois (Chicago),  most of the rest have limited or no reciprocity. The NAAMP pleading was misleading on that issue - shows a lot of green states that have reciprocity when that really is not the case. For exampme New York federal courts keep out everyone except NY, Conneticut and Vermont bar members, the NAAMP map makes it look like there is total reciprocity.

Ah, okay.  I'm just slow on the uptake, here.

That's actually more than a little shocking.  You'd think there'd be one set of admission requirements for all federal courts.  Wow, so the issue here is that the district courts in CA are roughing up out of state applicants to a higher degree than district courts in other states.  That is wierd.  Thanks for clarifying the lawsuit for me.

Online Law Schools / Re: distance learning
« on: November 29, 2011, 10:33:01 PM »
I am however opposed to letting in attorneys without a bar exam from states who would keep out non ABA California lawyers.

Seems reasonable enough.  If another state doesn't give full respect and benefits to a member of the California bar, then California should not feel compelled to do the same.

The situation has gotten so bad after the lawsuits filed that California Federal Court Judges in the Central and Northern Districts have tried to sanction me because I have an out of state address even though I am a member of their bars.

Haahahaha!  Wow, that's ridiculous.

Doesn't Texas also allow admission to the bar without an ABA law degree if you've practiced in another state?

Really, now that you mention it, it seems like there should really be one national standard.  Unfortunately, though, if they did that, it's likely that they'd require ABA accredited education.  Frankly, if you ask me, anybody who passes the bar exam should be allowed to be an attorney. 

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 67